The Atheist Bus Campaign : Global Manifestations and Responses [1 ed.] 9789004328532, 9789004321656

Citation preview

The Atheist Bus Campaign

International Studies in Religion and Society Series edited by Lori G. Beaman (University of Ottawa) Peter Beyer (University of Ottawa) Advisory Board Afe Adogame (University of Edinburgh) Elizabeth Coleman (Monash University) Lene Kühle (Aarhus University) Mary Jo Neitz (University of Missouri) Linda Woodhead (University of Lancaster)

VOLUME 27

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/isrs

The Atheist Bus Campaign Global Manifestations and Responses Edited by

Steven Tomlins Spencer Culham Bullivant

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Cover illustration: Atheist bus, Canada, 2009. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Tomlins, Steven, editor. Title: The atheist bus campaign : global manifestations and responses / edited by Steven Tomlins, Spencer Culham Bullivant. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, 2017. | Series: International studies in religion and society, ISSN 1573-4293 ; VOLUME 27 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2016032411 (print) | LCCN 2016033564 (ebook) | ISBN 9789004321656 (hardback : alk. paper) | ISBN 9789004328532 (E-book) Subjects: LCSH: Atheism--History--21st century. | Christianity and atheism. Classification: LCC BL2747.3 .A827 2016 (print) | LCC BL2747.3 (ebook) | DDC 211/.809051--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016032411

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 1573-4293 isbn 978-90-04-32165-6 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-32853-2 (e-book) Copyright 2017 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents List of Illustrations vii 1 Introduction 1 Steven Tomlins and Spencer Culham Bullivant 2

Australia: Conflict Not Competition 24 Alan Nixon

3

Brazil: The Invisibility of the Brazilian Bus Campaign 51 Paula Montero and Eduardo Dullo

4

Canada: Insights Derived from the Atheist Bus Campaign on the Status of Atheism in Canada’s Multicultural Mosaic 81 Steven Tomlins and Spencer Culham Bullivant

5

Croatia: Atheist Bus Campaign in Croatia; One Day Stand 114 Dinka Marinović Jerolimov and Nikolina Hazdovac Bajić

6

Finland: The Recognition and Rearticulation of Atheism in Public Discourse 139 Teemu Taira

7

Germany: The Atheist Bus Ads Campaign in Germany 157 Björn Mastiaux

8

Ireland: Unbelievable? The Atheist Bus Campaign in Ireland 176 Leon Dempsey

9

Italy: The Regimentation of Identity and Belief; Research Notes on Nonreligious Campaigns in Italy 196 Vanni Gasbarri

10

The Netherlands: Shifting Secularities? 216 Hanna Lehtinen

11

New Zealand: The Atheist Bus Campaign in New Zealand; From Buses to Billboards 239 William James Hoverd and Katja Strehle

vi

Contents

12

Russia: Atheism, ‘Blasphemy’, State and Orthodox Christianity 262 Teuvo Laitila

13

Spain: The Atheist Bus Campaign and the Uncertain Future of Organized Atheism in Spain 286 Javier Martínez-Torrón and Silvia Meseguer Velasco

14

Sweden: Criticizing Religion in ‘The World’s Most Secular Country’ 311 Magnus Hedelind

15

United Kingdom: All Publicity is Good Publicity, Probably 334 Katie Aston

16

United States of America: Secularist, Humanist, Atheist, and Freethought Bus Advertisements in the United States; Functions, Responses, and Effectiveness 369 Casey P. Homan, Marcus Mann and Ryan T. Cragun

17

Afterword: The Atheist Bus Campaign 395 Lori G. Beaman Index 405

List of Illustrations Figures 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 5.1 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5

Tasmanian Atheist Buses on the streets of Hobart Monday January 4, 2010 29 Atheist Bus ads before the gac conference in Melbourne 30 The Percentage of Australians Reporting No Religion from 1911 to 2011 37 The Percentage of Australians Reporting No Religion from 1971 to 2011 37 If God exists anything is allowed. Say no to prejudice against atheists 63 Religion does not define character. Does not believe in god. Believes in god. Say no to prejudice against atheists 64 Religion does not define character. Does not believe in god. Believes in god. Say no to prejudice against atheists 65 Faith provides no answers; it only hinders questions. Say no to prejudice against atheists 65 We are all atheists when it comes to other people’s gods. Say no to prejudice against atheists. Hindu myth. Egyptian myth. Palestinian myth 66 Sanja Burlović (Center for Women War Victims), Sanja Juras (Kontra) and Bojana Genov 135 New Zealand atheist billboard slogan generated by now defunct www.nogodnz .co.nz website 253 New Zealand atheist billboard slogan generated by now defunct www.nogodnz .co.nz website 254 New Zealand atheist billboard slogan generated by now defunct www.nogodnz .co.nz website 254 Atheist Billboard Displayed in Wellington, New Zealand, August 2010 255 Proclaiming the truth advert similar to that seen by Sherine linking to the www .jesussaid.org website 336 Ariane Sherine and Richard Dawkins in front of the ‘Atheist Bus’ 337 Judy Walker’s cartoon, New Humanist issue 124: 4, 2009 349 bha Logo and the Winning entry 352 Good without God badge 353

Tables 1.1 1.2

Freedom of Thought 2014 status/existence of blasphemy laws 3 Slogans chosen by atheist bus advertisement organizers according to country 9

viii 2.1 5.1 8.1

List of Illustrations afa Media Releases on the Bus Campaigns 48 Religious self-identification in Zagreb and in Croatia 116 2011 Census, Ireland, Religious and Nonreligious Identities/Affiliations by Population 178

chapter 1

Introduction Steven Tomlins and Spencer Culham Bullivant The idea behind the global phenomenon that came to be known as the ‘atheist bus campaign’ originated in the United Kingdom (uk) in 2008 when comedian and journalist Arian Sherine began to muse about Christian advertisements she saw on London buses. Sherine wrote an article in a comments section of The Guardian newspaper about these Evangelical advertisements which urged viewers to visit a website that threatened non-believers with an eternity in Hell. In this article she proposed an atheist response, also in the form of bus advertisements. Both the British Humanist Association and popular scientist and atheist media personality Richard Dawkins supported this idea. It quickly met with financial success as donations reached beyond expectations, and generated a large amount of publicity, both nationally and internationally. Overall nearly 2000 atheist advertisements carried the slogan “There’s Probably No God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life” on buses and trains across the uk, and although it generated discussion and a few complaints, the advertisements ran without any legal difficulties or major incidents. It also influenced a global movement: inspired by the uk campaign, atheist advertisement campaigns manifested in different ways, with various degrees of success in at least fifteen countries, from Brazil to New Zealand. Although the initial run in the uk went relatively smoothly, that was not the case with most of the other countries which held their own manifestation of the atheist bus campaign, nor does it mean that the uk, as with all of the countries covered in this volume, is free from discrimination against atheists. In 2014 the International Humanist and Ethical Union (iheu) published Freedom of Thought 2014: A Global Report on the Rights, Legal Status, and Discrimination Against Humanists, Atheists, and the Nonreligious. This report looked at discrimination against nonreligious individuals such as atheists “by state authorities; that is systemic, legal or official forms of discrimination and restrictions on freedom of thought, belief and expression,” as well as “extralegal persecution, social discrimination and personal experience where possible.”1 They found that: 1 International Humanist and Ethical Union, 2015, Freedom of Thought 2014: A Global Report on the Rights, Legal Status, and Discrimination Against Humanists, Atheists, and the Nonreligious, International Humanist and Ethical Union. http://freethoughtreport.com/­ download-the-report/, 11. (accessed July 15, 2015). © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004328532_002

2

Tomlins and CULHAM Bullivant

[…] the overwhelming majority of countries fail to respect the rights of atheists and freethinkers. For example, there are laws that deny atheists’ right to exist, revoke their right to citizenship, restrict their right to marry, obstruct their access to or experience of public education, prohibit them from holding public office, prevent them from working for the state, or criminalize the expression of their views on and criticism of religion. In the worst cases, the state or non-state actors may execute the nonreligious for leaving the religion of their parents, may deny the rights of atheists to exist, or may seek total control over their beliefs and actions.2 All of the fifteen countries which enacted – or attempted to enact – versions of the 2008–2009 atheist bus campaign, or a variation thereof, were rated by the iheu and given a status, ranging from the least severe, “Free and Equal,” to ­“Severe Discrimination,” the second most severe status in their scale. ­Moreover, eleven of the fifteen countries have laws against blasphemy, or laws that serve a similar purpose, as can be seen on Table 1.1. This is not to argue that the laws against blasphemy in these countries are themselves severe, or that they are commonly used, but it is to suggest that such laws offer at least a symbolic dismissal of atheist or nonreligious expression that openly contradicts religious belief. Nor is it to argue that the ‘status’ of each country is presented accurately by the iheu, since subjective categorizations can be debated.3 It is, however, to point out that the treatment of atheists is problematic in many countries, even those that have constitutional protections for free expression and speech. The number of people who do not identify with a religion has been increasing around the world. A 2012 Pew survey found that just over 16% of the world’s population is unaffiliated with a recognized religion.4 Although this group may not exclusively be atheists, or other nonreligious people, it arguably is where the majority of atheists would find themselves categorized. A 2015 Pew report attempted to gauge the future growth of atheism worldwide and argued that the “unaffiliated” group will grow overall, but will decline in relation to the 2 Ibid. 3 We would argue, for example, that the United States of America should be categorized as having Systemic Discrimination, since “atheists by law cannot be elected to public office in several states and by public opinion could not be elected to the presidency of the United States.” Cimino, Richard, and Smith, Christopher. 2007. “Secular Humanism and Atheism beyond Progressive Secularism.” Sociology of Religion. 68(4):407–424, 419. 4 Pew Research Center, 2012. “The Global Religious Landscape,” 9.

3

Introduction Table 1.1

Freedom of Thought 2014 status/existence of blasphemy laws

Country

The International Humanist and Ethical Union (iheu) Freedom of Thought 2014 Status (Rating)*

Does this country have a Blasphemy Law (or close approximation)?

Australia Brazil Canada Croatia Finland Germany Ireland Italy The Netherlands New Zealand Russia Spain Sweden The United Kingdom The United States of America

Systemic Discrimination Systemic Discrimination Systemic Discrimination Severe Discrimination Systemic Discrimination Severe Discrimination Systemic Discrimination Severe Discrimination Free and Equal Severe Discrimination Severe Discrimination Systemic Discrimination Systemic Discrimination Systemic Discrimination Mostly Satisfactory

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No

* The full title is Freedom of Thought 2014: A Global Report on the Rights, Legal Status, and Discrimination Against Humanists, Atheists, and the Nonreligious. Rating is done on a ‘status’ scale from least severe to most severe: Free and Equal; Mostly Satisfactory; Systemic Discrimination; Severe Discrimination; Grave Violations.

global religious population over the next 40 years.5 As the percentage of atheists and other unaffiliated individuals grows or declines in relation to the numbers of religious individuals, the need to understand the conflicts presented in the following chapters will be increasingly important. The terms ‘atheist’ and ‘atheism’ are used throughout this volume rather than the often-synonymous terms of ‘secularist’ or ‘humanist’. This is largely due to the nature of each respective campaign as well as the reactions to those campaigns presented in each of this volume’s chapters. These ads represent 5 Pew Research Center, 2015. “The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections,” 5.

4

Tomlins and CULHAM Bullivant

distinct views regarding theism and so our use of ‘atheism’ is pragmatic. The language of the ads in each country references some form of theistic deity and the possibility for people to reject that theism. In using this term we hope to avoid what Lois Lee called the “confused and confusing terminology of ‘the secular’, ‘secularism’, and ‘secularity’.”6 Although all of the main campaignorganizing groups presented in this volume could be considered secular and humanist, these terms bring with them a massive amount of scholarship that is not included here. It is our hope that these collected chapters shine light onto an understudied phenomenon which perhaps can be used in investigating secularism across the globe, but that is outside the purview of our goals for this limited and focused research. One interesting thing about atheism is that it is derived, as a descriptor, from its symbiotic relationship to theism. ‘Atheism’ comes from the Ancient Greek ‘atheos’; ‘a’ translates as ‘without’ or ‘not’ and ‘theos’ refers to ‘god’.7 Atheism is the rejection of theism. The ‘theisms’ of which atheists are opposed depend on context. In order to truly understand atheism in a specific context one must also understand the theisms of that context. By the same logic, to understand the role of theisms in any given context an understanding of how atheists are treated is also vital. As Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerteis, and Douglas Hartmann explain, “attitudes toward atheists tell us more about American society and culture then about atheists themselves.”8 When atheism is given low status or is discriminated against, theism is privileged; when theism is given low status or is discriminated against, atheism is privileged. Expressions of atheism, in terms of rights and freedoms, are a barometer for theism, and theism, in turn, is a barometer for atheism. Every country regulates religion to one degree or another, and every country has atheists. One way to better understand the unique atheist/theist relationships inside a country is through country-tocountry comparisons. It is the recognition of the value of such comparisons which led to the conception of this book. An interesting and useful way to look at the roles of atheism in various countries for comparative purposes is to pick a focal point that is shared across borders from which to analyse. The campaigns themselves serve to reveal the underlying sympathies of the local populations, while the difficulties, (or lack thereof), of creating and exhibiting an anti-religious advertisement on public 6 Lois Lee, “Research Note: Talking about a Revolution: Terminology for the New Field of Nonreligion Studies.” 130. 7 Michael Martin, The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 1. 8 Edgell, Gerteis, and Hartman, “Atheists,” 230.

Introduction

5

transportation, act as the levers upon which the following chapters offer their analysis. The atheist bus campaign provided a focal point of analysis because similar atheist advertisement campaigns occurred in different countries spanning the globe at roughly the same period in time so we have a broad foundation for international comparison while still allowing for a discussion of each country’s particular socio-political and historical context. While the slogans were often similar, the social and legal responses and reactions to each campaign tell unique stories about the atheist/theist relationships for each country, although they show more than a few similarities between countries as well. Before researching the Canadian campaign, we were aware that the slogan was ‘borrowed’ from the uk, which we felt may make for a good comparative analysis, but we soon realized that it had also influenced organized atheists in fourteen other countries, many of which used the same slogan, but of which we knew next to nothing. We then discovered that there was a lack of academic articles on many of these campaigns, and we simply wanted to know more about how ‘the campaign’ was perceived in those different global contexts. Not only would such knowledge aid in our understanding of what was significant about the campaign in our own country, but it would open itself to valuable cross-country comparisons of atheism, and provide a base understanding of the treatment of atheism globally, albeit necessarily, but accessibly, selective. It is with this in mind that we decided it would be a worthwhile pursuit to prepare an edited volume on the atheist bus campaign consisting of chapters which were written by recognized and ground-breaking scholars in the field of atheism studies, or, when a country had a lacuna of literature specifically on localized atheism, a related field. Our goal was to create a volume that brought together a group of international researchers to discuss how each campaign originated, including national contexts and local distinctions, and how each country’s various communities reacted to the campaign socially as well as legally. Our purpose was to offer scholars and the interested public a detailed analysis of how the atheist bus campaign was received in different national settings. This volume is the result of an initial curiosity about how atheist bus campaigns faired in each country that experienced an offshoot of the 2008–2009 atheist bus campaign that originated in the uk with the slogan “There’s Probably No God. Now Stop Worrying And Enjoy Your Life.” Katie Aston writes about the campaign that started this international movement in her chapter, “The United Kingdom: All Publicity is Good Publicity, Probably.” Canada, Croatia, Finland, the Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Sweden, and Russia also used this slogan. Australia, Brazil, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, and the United States of America held atheist bus campaigns during the same timeframe, but used

6

Tomlins and CULHAM Bullivant

either novel but relatable slogans or variations of the uk slogan. Each of these countries is the focus of a chapter which analyzes the local circumstances, and the legal and social responses, of that campaign, and each is written by a scholar from that country. The countries are presented in alphabetical order for ease of comparison. During the course of editing this volume, a number of themes emerged. Not all themes apply to each country, but themes often overlapped between countries. We have separated these themes under the broad headings of Contexts, Responses, and Metanarratives. Each heading addresses a number of themes using an example from the chapters that follow, and it is to the first heading that we now turn. 1.1 Contexts The themes around context which emerged from the chapters are: the small scope of the campaigns (they were more media driven than bus ad driven); campaigns were often created to challenge a perceived normative religiosity in society, to challenge negative public perceptions of atheists, and/or to let atheists know they are not alone; how some campaigns came about as a desire to push back against religion and prompt focussed change, such as a change in law; and how the slogans were often adapted to suit each local and/or national setting. Each of these themes is addressed in this section through an example of one of the chapters that follow. Teemu Taira, author of the chapter “Finland: The Recognition and Rearticulation of Atheism in Public Discourse” found that the campaign, which was an attempt for atheists to increase visibility as well as rearticulate atheism away from past associations with communism, caused significant discussion in the media, although its physical presence was quite limited. Having not personally seen a Finish bus with an atheist advertisement he informally asked his acquaintances if they had seen one, and they all answered in the negative. He asked some specific groups if they had seen any of the atheist buses, and found that not many people had seen them in person, but many were aware of the campaign, as Taira explains: Only one out of approximately 100 teachers of religious education and philosophy, most of them working in the Greater Helsinki area where the main part of the campaign took place, raised a hand when I asked this question. Of 15 activists in the Humanist Alliance in Helsinki – one of the organizers of the bus ads campaign – a third raised their hands. However, practically everyone knew about the campaign and most had heard the

Introduction

7

slogan. This tells us an important thing about the atheist bus ads campaign itself: it was designed to get attention in the media. Taira notes that “[t]he proper focus of the event was the media and most of the social responses to the campaign took place there,” and argues that the criticism surrounding the advertisements actually aided the campaigners in terms of increased public attention. Here Taira makes an important point about the scope of the campaign in Finland – it’s physical run was quite small, but it produced vibrant media discussion, meaning that its success can be considered in terms of media visibility rather than how many people actually saw an advertisement in person. Many of the campaigns in other countries were similarly small scale ‘physically’, and some never made it past advertisement authorities, but the controversy nonetheless attracted plenty of media attention and ensured that its message was heard, if not always appreciated. Other countries with notably limited physical presences include Ireland, The Netherlands, New Zealand, and Spain, although not all of these received as much media attention as did the Finnish campaign. In contrast, the United States of America was one country whose atheist advertisement campaigns consisted of a large physical presence. Marcus Mann, Casey Homan, and Ryan T. Cragun co-authored the chapter on the us, “Secularist, Humanist, Atheist, and Freethought Bus Advertisements in the United States; Functions, Responses, and Effectiveness.” This country had by far the most variety of campaigns and slogans, and through their analysis of forty-one atheist advertisement campaigns between 2008– 2013 they found that: The advertising messages tended to focus on outreach to people who were already atheists or nonbelievers, though there were also efforts to normalize atheism and nonreligion and there was some criticism of religion. We found very little evidence of efforts to convert people to atheism or agnosticism in the advertising campaigns we analyzed. Mann, Homan, and Cragun’s analysis of the advertising campaigns show an attempt by atheists to challenge negative perceptions of atheism since “atheists are some of the most disliked people in the United States,” and “[a]dvertising that humanizes atheists and portrays them as trustworthy may result in lower levels of prejudice.” The notion that the campaigns were created to challenge a normative societal religiosity and at least a perceived negative public image or status can be found throughout most, if not all, of the campaigns. In a few cases, however, the purpose of the campaign was more specific and direct: to shape public opinion in order to change laws.

8

Tomlins and CULHAM Bullivant

Occasionally countries were quite direct in having their purpose printed right on the advertisement, such as Ireland, where the organizers opted for a message that would raise the public’s awareness of the unequal status of atheists and call for a specific change in law. As Leon Dempsey explains in his chapter, “Unbelievable? The Atheist Bus Campaign in Ireland,” the Humanist Association of Ireland opted for the following message on their advertisements: Unbelievable. Did you know that you must take a religious oath in order to become a judge – or the President – in Ireland? In effect, this rule disbars up to 250,000 Irish citizens who are non-believers. It’s discrimination. It’s unfair. And it has to end. This advertisement did not come across any legal issues but it only ran on one rail service in Dublin and had a limited public response (only a few people called the phone number on the advertisement; less than the organizers had expected). It does, however, illustrate how atheist organizers from some countries catered the messages on the advertisements to deal with their local concerns, in this case legal discrimination written into the Irish constitution which bans atheists from becoming a judge or President. Likewise, Croatia offers another example of organizers catering their message to their national audiences and showing their unique concerns. In Croatia the campaign was designed not only to point out intolerance toward atheists, but also to highlight intolerance directed at other minorities and women. As Dinka Marinovic Jerolimov and Nikolina Hazdovac Bajić explain in their chapter, “Atheist Bus Campaign in Croatia; One Day Stand,” the initiator of the Croatian campaign, Ms. Bojana Genov, the coordinator of the Women’s Network in Croatia, chose the slogan, “No God, no master,” which is anarchist, libertarian and feminist in origin, but also speaks to atheism. Genov wanted a message that spoke to both women and atheists, and although the advertisement was pulled after only one day it led to months of public debate. On the decision to use “No God, no master,” as the campaign’s slogan, Genov explained, in hindsight: I still extremely like that slogan though probably it was the fiercest considering such a dogmatic public. It was certainly the most problematic it could be. But anyway, when you do something like that, you won’t do lemonade, right? It is a question of either-or. We needed something really provocative. In this case it was the Women’s Network in Croatia that decided to pursue an atheist campaign, and they opted to do so in a way that they felt would

9

Introduction

highlight the plight of both atheists and women in that country. While the campaign itself only lasted one day the slogan proved controversial enough to generate quite a lot of public discussion. The Croatian campaign was catered to a Croatian audience, and if being provocative was a goal, as Genov expressed, then it certainly succeeded. That the slogans or messages were created, or chosen for, different audiences depending on unique (and sometimes similar) national contexts is something that can be gleaned from Table 1.2 which lists the slogans chosen by atheist bus advertisement organizers according to country. Table 1.2

Slogans chosen by atheist bus advertisement organizers according to country

Country

Slogan*

Australia

“Atheism – Because there is no credible evidence” “Atheism – Celebrate Reason!” “If God Exists, I Hope He Has a Good Excuse” “We are all atheists when it comes to other people’s gods” “Faith provides no answers; it only hinders questions” “If God exists anything is allowed” “Religion does not define character” “There’s Probably no God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life.” “You Can be Good Without God” “No God, No Master” “There’s Probably no God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life” “Enjoy your Life as if it were the Only one you Have. Because it is” “There is (with a probability bordering on certainty) no god. Enlightenment means taking over responsibility” “Unbelievable. Did you know that you must take a religious oath in order to become a judge – or the President – in Ireland? In effect, this rule disbars up to 250,000 Irish citizens who are non-believers. It’s discrimination. It’s unfair. And it has to end.”

Brazil

Canada Croatia Finland

Germany Ireland

* English translations where applicable. Some of these were rejected by those in charge of bus advertisements, such as Australia’s first slogan “Atheism – Because there is no credible evidence,” which never ran, Croatia’s “No God, No Master,” which was pulled after one day, and both of the Russian slogans, which were immediately rejected.

10 Table 1.2

Tomlins and CULHAM Bullivant Slogans chosen by atheist bus advertisement organizers according to country (cont.)

Country

Slogan*

Italy

“Bad news: There is no God. Good news: you won’t need one” “The good news is that in Italy there are millions of atheists. The excellent news is that they believe in Freedom of Speech” “There Probably is no God. Dare to Think for Yourself and Enjoy Life!” “There’s Probably no God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life” “Good without God? Over One Million Kiwis are” “In the Beginning, Man Created God” “We are all Atheists about Most Gods. Some of us just go One Step Further” “There’s Probably no God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life” “The Russian Federation is a secular state. No religion may be established as a state or obligatory one” “God probably does not exist. Do not worry and enjoy life.” “There’s probably no God” “There’s probably no God, but he still affects your life” “Less than 20 percent of the Swedish people are religious. But God is still sacred in our country. We, within the Swedish Humanist Association, consider this to be something to think twice about. There are numerous instances where religion affects people’s lives – and not just the lives of the believers, but also the other seven million citizens in the country. How religious are you? And how do you think that society should relate to religion? Try our test on www .gudfinnsnoginte.se” “There’s Probably no God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life” “Don’t believe in a Supreme Being? You are not alone” “You can be good without God” “Being good for goodness’ sake” “Millions of Americans are good without God” “Are you good without God? Millions are”

The Netherlands New Zealand

Russia

Spain Sweden

The United Kingdom The United States of America

11

Introduction

Country

Slogan*

The United States of America

“Don’t believe in God? You are not alone” “Don’t believe in a God? Join the Club” “Doubts about Religion? You’re one of many” “Are you good without God? Millions of Americans are” “No God? No problem! Be good for goodness’ sake” “Being good for goodness’ sake” “1 in 4 is an atheist” “Millions of Americans are living happily without religion” “You don’t need God – to hope, to care, to love, to live” “You don’t have to believe in God to be a moral or ethical person” “Keep religion OUT of government” “God and government: a dangerous mix; keep church and state separate” “In the beginning, man created God” “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so” “As my ancestors are free from slavery, I am free from the slavery of religion” “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction” “The United States is not founded on the Christian religion”**

** Amongst others (the us had by far the largest variety of slogans).

The choice of slogans, as well as a myriad of other factors, some of which will be discussed below, contributed to the legal and social responses received by each campaign. We now turn to a discussion of the most common themes that emerged regarding those responses. 1.2 Responses The themes which emerged from many chapters regarding responses include: initial bus advertisement agency refusal to run the advertisements; public and

12

Tomlins and CULHAM Bullivant

legal discussions and rulings about freedom of speech/expression vs. the ‘offensive’ advertisements; heated public debates in the media; support for the campaign from religious communities; and counter-campaigns from religious communities. Most campaigns had to deal with resistance from at least one bus advertisement agency, or advertisement management, and at worst a complete refusal to run the advertisements. Countries where this was a major concern for organizers included: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Croatia, Germany, Italy, New Zealand, Russia, and Spain. In some cases cities within a country accepted the advertisements while other cities in that country refused them. In others, every city or municipality refused to run the advertisements. In some cases the public was supportively behind the ban and in others people came out strongly against the ban; public opinion in the latter cases often favoured freedom of speech or expression even though they may not have agreed with the message. The nuance of each legal case is discussed in each of the chapters featuring countries which dealt with managerial refusal. Usually these were cases whereby the company in charge of bus advertisements said that religious advertisements of any kind were not allowed, or that there was something at least potentially offensive about the atheist advertisement which had been submitted for review. The legal status of the advertisements often became an issue of public ­debate, as did criticism of the atheist messages. In her chapter “The ­Netherlands: Atheist Billboard Campaign,” Hanna Lehtinen explains how the ­advertisement, “There Probably is no God. Dare to Think for Yourself and E ­ njoy Life!” was ­initially banned from buses but ran on a billboard for two weeks. An organizer explained that the purpose of the campaign was (as paraphrased by Lehtinen) “to normalize atheism, to promote reason and to offer a positive counter-message to religious organizations that often promote their cause in public spaces,” as well as “to bring the privileges of religious institutions under scrutiny and public debate.” The debate it generated included more than these arguments, and centered around a wider discussion on the value of religious tolerance verses the value of free expression. Debates in The Netherlands’ media included discussions about Islam’s (in) ability to be compatible with Dutch culture; discussions about “the position of the more established religious institutions;” criticism of the advertisement being offensive and particularly anti-Christian; the role of public space being used for this or related debates; and general discussions about atheism and evolution. These are by no means the only topics that the campaign raised for debate in the media, intentionally or unintentionally, but they do show how the initial advertisement often led to public debates, and not always

Introduction

13

just on the existence or non-existence of God, but often on matters relating to local church/state relations and what is suitable expression for shared public spaces. Spain offers an example of how public debates often included the voice of religious communities who would weigh in through media channels such as interviews and letters to a newspaper as well as through counter-campaigns. Javier Martínez-Torrón and Silvia Meseguer Velasco explain in their chapter, “The Atheist Bus Campaign and the Uncertain Future of Organized Atheism in Spain,” how the atheist bus advertisments led to diverse social responses, and quite a few reactions from religious communities. Spanish Catholic bishops, for example, produced a press release entitled, “Advertising on public buses harmful to religious freedom,” and argued that the atheist campaign had blasphemous expressions which were damaging to religious freedom. Another Catholic community organized protests and demonstrations against the atheistic campaign and requested local authorities to withdraw the advertisement, announcing that for every secular bus they would rent two buses with the slogan “Dios existe, confía en él” (“God exists, trust in Him”). Some evangelical Christians funded their own bus advertisement campaign with the slogan Dios sí existe, disfruta de la vida en Cristo (“God does exist, enjoy life in Christ”), and the president of a Spanish federation of Islamic communities stated that he believes atheists have the right to their campaign and he did not find it offensive. Likewise the president of the main federation of Islamic communities in Spain stated that “[e]veryone is free to express what he wants” as long as one “respects” others. While the atheist bus campaign was shortlived in Spain, it certainly did generate public debates and diverse reactions from religious communities. Some campaigns received moral support from religious communities. In Canada, where responses were mixed and the public was generally indifferent to the advertisements, some theists openly supported the atheist bus campaign, even while producing their own counter campaigns. As we, Steven Tomlins and Spencer Cullham Bullivant, explain in our chapter, “Canada: Insights Derived from the Atheist Bus Campaign on the Status of Atheism in Canada’s Multicultural Mosaic,” the United Church of Canada responded to the atheist bus campaign through a newspaper campaign that featured the slogan, “There’s probably a God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Reverend Keith Howard, the executive director behind that campaign, explained how he saw the ads as an opportunity for discussion:

14

Tomlins and CULHAM Bullivant

I didn’t find [the atheist ads] particularly offensive […] Really what they were trying to do was prompt some discussion. They are by the Freethought Association of Canada. I assume by that title it’s not just a cover and they are trying to promote conversation. Rev. Howard saw the campaign as an opportunity to have “a respectful, civilized discourse” with atheists. Likewise, some religious communities cooperated with a counter-campaign called “God Exists,” which lead to the planning of a debate between atheists and theists, according to Cliff Erasmus, acting as spokesman for the Calgary branch of the atheist bus campaign, and Iman Soharwardy, who was behind the “God Exists” campaign. Soharwardy explained that although he was not impressed with the atheist bus ad messages, he welcomed the opportunity to debate atheists, “I have been trying for many years to organize a dialogue.” Moreover, Don Hutchinson, Vice-President of the Centre for Faith and Public Life and General Legal Counsel with The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, wrote an article in support of the ads which was subtitled: “It appears atheists are welcoming a discussion of religion in the public square. That’s really good news!” Hutchinson hoped the atheist bus campaign would result in more religious and pro-life views being presented in public, and concluded: Life in the public square will certainly be enhanced when we can all stop worrying about whether or not it is an appropriate place to share our beliefs, or for others to share theirs, and just enter into the discussion. These are just a few examples from Canada of how campaigns were occasionally supported by religious communities, and when they were, it was usually due to welcoming the debate as well as standing behind the notion of free religious expression, which was considered to be as important for those of religious persuasions as it was for those of irreligious persuasions. When it comes to counter-campaigns not all were as affable as those in Canada, and perhaps the most unique counter-campaign occurred in Germany. As Bjoern Mastiaux explains in his chapter, “The Atheist Bus Ads Campaign in Germany,” the initial advertisement, which had the slogan, “There is (with a probability bordering on certainty) no god. Enlightenment means taking over responsibility,” was ultimately refused by all German cities in which it was submitted. Mastiaux notes that it was rejected in all municipal transport companies in seventeen cities across Germany, which had been approached, to carry the ads on their vehicles. Reasons

Introduction

15

given for these rejections – sometimes after initial acceptance – by the municipal agencies stemmed from the fear that the campaign might shock passengers, over its classification as “god- despising,” to decisions not to accept any worldview or religion related posters any longer. As a result of these rejections, but with a desire to emulate the uk campaign by keeping the slogans on buses, the organizers decided to rent a red double-decker bus, put their slogan on it, and drive it across the country for three weeks, stopping in over twenty cities. The evangelical group Campus Crusade for Christ (Campus für Christus) decided to create their own counter-campaign. They rented a white luxury coach and followed the atheist bus from city to city, displaying their counter-slogan, “Knowing God” with the question “And what if He does exist…?” This caught the media’s attention and they started reporting on the atheist campaign a specific way: atheists and theists were depicted as being on a joint proselytizing tour. This was not how the atheist organizers had originally envisioned their campaign. They had wanted to point out that religion does not dictate morality, but instead they were portrayed as being on a “crusade,” “proselytizing” atheism just as the evangelical bus was proselytizing Christianity. In the German manifestation of the atheist bus campaign, the Christian counter-campaign influenced the media coverage and public perceptions in a way that changed the message and shifted the debate. Other counter-campaigns were usually less antagonistic, preferring to argue against the atheist message with their own messages but not doing so in a way that shifted the ‘story’ from one of God’s existence (or the ability for an atheist to be moral, etc.), to a proselytizing battle. As we have seen, the atheist bus advertisement campaigns received a wide variety of responses and reactions around the world. Each country presented unique challenges in terms of finding the ‘right’ slogan and actually getting the ads onto public display. These challenges were largely reflected in the response, or lack thereof, of state actors, religious individuals, and religious organizations. The next section looks at a few metanarratives that address why these responses occurred. 1.3 Metanarratives One of the most important features of this volume is that it uncovers some of the deeper issues involved when atheists attempt to add their voices to public discourse. These issues revolve around particular metanarratives

16

Tomlins and CULHAM Bullivant

present in many of the countries discussed in the following chapters. The themes that emerged from the chapters that speak to metanarratives are: legal and social responses were intrinsically tied to each nation’s history; factors which influenced public perceptions of the campaigns include immigration, diversity, national identities, shifting demographics, and religious markets; campaigns were often engaged with minority discourse and power dynamics; church/state relations and secularism were questioned; and reactions to the campaigns show the condition of atheism, particularly organized atheism, in each country. An important theme shared amongst all chapters is that the responses of each campaign were tied to that country’s history. In “Russia: Atheism, ‘Blasphemy’, and Orthodox Christianity,” Teuvo Laitila explains how the Russian atheist bus campaign failed to materialize after the organizers met with refusals for both of their advertisements. The first advertisement had as its slogan, “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life,” and the second advertisement was more politically poignant, citing the fourteenth article of the Russian Constitution: “The Russian Federation is a secular state. No religion may be established as a state or obligatory one.” The organizers were not given a reason for the refusal of the first advertisement, and of the second all that is publicly known is that they were informed that it had to do with “the limited options for advertising in Moscow.” In order to make sense of these refusals Laitila provides a history of religiosity in Russia, from Soviet-sponsored state-secularism, through “the edging out of atheism from the public sphere in the 1990s,” to the “invisibility” of atheism today. Without understanding the recent history of Russia, one cannot understand why atheism is marginalized and why atheist messages are considered controversial to both state and church. He subsequently explains how “the lack of tolerance of public critique of religion” is directly related to “the making of the new Russian identity” with “the mutual aid of the Russian Orthodox Church,” and the government “in their struggle against all expressions of opposition, including atheists and atheism, to legitimate their power and identity.” Laitila concludes that: atheism is counted among ideologies and practices that the government and other prevailing authorities consider as their enemies. Moreover, a public atheist is considered a ‘false’ Russian, someone having betrayed his nation, country, and culture. Therefore most of the potential supporters of secularization (including the right to be an atheist) keep silent, whereas more and more Russians declare themselves Orthodox, on ethnic and cultural rather than purely religious grounds.

Introduction

17

The point here is that in order to properly understand contemporary reactions to the atheist bus campaign, or even to atheistic expression in general, one must have at least a rudimentary sense of a nation’s past regarding religiosity and its historical regulation of religion. Besides history, major factors which influenced public perceptions of the campaigns include national identities, shifting demographics, religious markets, immigration, and the reality and regulation of diversity. Sweden is an example of a country that responded to the campaign in relation to all of these factors. As Magnus Hedelind explains in his chapter, “Sweden: Religious Critique in the ‘World’s Most Secular Country’,” the public, media, and later academic discussions of the Swedish campaign dealt with questions of Islamophobia and compared the campaign to the Sweden Democrats, a conservative populist party with strong opinions concerning the place (if any place at all) of Islam in Swedish society and culture. The Swedish Humanist Association, which Hedelind describes as liberal anti-relativists trying to reduce tolerance for religious practices (which are understood within the organization to be anti-liberal, antisecular and violating human rights) while at the same time putting up a fight against, what they describe as, philosophical postmodernism and normative multiculturalism, created billboards which they felt commentated on religious saturation in Sweden, but which were criticized for being anti-religious, particularly antiIslam. The billboard portrayed altered Swedish flags featuring insignias of Judaism (a star of David), Islam (a crescent moon), and Christianity (a cross). The Christian flag was actually the Swedish flag slightly altered and turned 90 degrees, and the message behind the image, according to an organizer, was that religions’ influence is widespread – even the flag was shaped by religion. Large billboards also included the following text: Less than 20 percent of the Swedish people are religious. But God is still sacred in our country. We, within the Swedish Humanist Association, consider this to be something to think twice about. There are numerous instances where religion affects people’s lives – and not just the lives of the believers, but also the other seven million citizens in the country. How religious are you? And how do you think that society should relate to religion? Try our test on; www.gudfinnsnoginte.se

18

Tomlins and CULHAM Bullivant

The organizers also published a “secular manifesto” in Sweden’s largest newspaper. This manifesto explained their positions with regard to religion in Sweden, and stressed that “human rights were being violated,” by practices such as circumcision, and “because the state did not recognize the absolute importance of individual human rights, and because religion, culture and traditions were overrated by law and society at large.” Due to immigration and migration, the Islamic population has been rising in Sweden, and this “has resulted in a politicized and polarized discussion about Swedish culture or secularity and Islam,” which influenced how the campaign was perceived. Discussions about the campaign included the one-sided nature of the attack on religions (negative qualities were highlighted while positive qualities ignored); the stigmatization of Muslims when right-wing extremism, hostile to Islam (conceived of as foreign), was on the rise; and comparisons with the Sweden Democrats who often criticized Islam (even though that political party, unlike the atheist campaign organizers, viewed Christianity as an important element of Swedish national identity). The organizers countered that critics were ignoring the humanist points in their manifesto, as explained by Christer Sturmark, who was in charge of communications: The Swedish Humanist Association pursues a secular society where humans with different backgrounds, faiths and cultures will be able to coexist without letting one religion gain precedence before all others. This is the direct opposite compared to the Sweden Democrats, the Islamists and conservative Christians, which all advocate monoculture society based on religious values and one religion’s preference above others. Only a secular society can enable the ideal of a multicultural society. Here, in the case of Sweden, a multitude of factors influenced how the atheist advertisement campaign was perceived by the public, and subsequently, how the public responded to the campaign. These factors include immigration/ migration, shifting religious demographics, diversity/multiculturalism, and national identity – the campaign contributed to, yet was also tainted by, o­ ngoing debates about these larger issues. In “The Regimentation of Identity and Belief; Research Notes on Non­religious Campaigns in Italy,” Vanni Gasbarri explains the limitations placed on the Italian atheist bus campaign by linking the events to minority discourse, particularly ‘power’ dynamics. This is a theme that came out through most chapters in terms of initial refusal of the advertisements, although Gasbarri raises it to the forefront in his discussion of the Italian campaign. Italy, significantly, had

Introduction

19

more outspoken political and religious opposition to their campaign than was found in most countries. The Italian campaign was organized by nonreligious unions such as the Union of Atheists, Agnostics and Rationalists (uaar), who wanted to put an advertisement on a bus in Genoa that had the slogan, “Bad news: There is no God. Good news: you won’t need one.” This was refused by the company in charge of bus advertisements, and the organizers opted for a different message, which ran on one bus for a few hours before the bus had a technical issue and was brought in for repair: “The good news is that in Italy there are millions of atheists. The excellent news is that they believe in Freedom of Speech.” This advertisement went to a few other Italian cities in the form of banner campaigns where it met with local opposition: As the campaign was exported to more Italian towns, judicial prosecution added to political opposition. On June 11, 2009, the Carabinieri (Italian Military Police Force operating on civil grounds) removed banners reading the original uaar message from the roads of Papozze (Veneto, Italy). Manilo Padovan, the 72 year-old uaar representative for the province of Rovigo, was accused of “offending religion” (Articles 403 and 404 of the Italian Penal Code), even though he had regularly paid the tax for advertising on public spaces to the local council, who accepted the payment. On the 16th of the same month, paper flyers reading the uaar message which had been posted along a roadway were torn off in Reggio Emilia (Emilia Romagna, Italy) after igp Decaux refused to publish the ad on the banner spaces they managed. In comparison, a Catholic counter-bus-ad-campaign had no known difficulty spreading its message, “Jesus rose from the dead. Enjoy life with him,” on sixty buses spanning thirteen towns. To Gasbarri, power can be understood in three ways which are useful for understanding the reactions to the Italian atheist bus campaign: “power (1) is the possibility to act irrespective of an existing system of rules; power (2) is a participatory negotiation of rules by a capillary distribution of ‘representatives’, and; power (3) is the framing of the political discussion, which contains in itself notions of what can and cannot be discussed.” In Italy, where the majority of people are Catholic, the atheist message is ‘taboo’, framed by those in power as being an intolerant attack on the majority’s beliefs, and the campaign was thus marginalized, silenced, and in some cases personally attacked by politicians, clergy, and citizens. In Australia the atheist bus campaign raised questions about secularism and what it means to be a secular country. In Alan Nixon’s chapter, “Australia:

20

Tomlins and CULHAM Bullivant

Conflict Not Competition,” he points out that “the religiously shy culture of Australia, combined with limited protections for religion/free speech and the ambiguity of Australia’s secularism, has allowed atheists to have their freedom of speech and rights curtailed, in the name of secular neutrality.” The Australian atheist bus campaign, organized by the Australian Foundation for Atheists (afa), was rejected by apn Outdoor, the company responsible for bus advertising, with its general manager later explaining, as paraphrased by Nixon, “that public buses were owned by state governments, who stipulated in agreements with apn that any advertisement that might offend the community was not permitted on public buses.” They also received initial refusal to run their ads in Tasmania, and both of these cases led to legal action with the afa claiming they were discriminated against. Ads eventually ran in some cities, but the initial refusal led to larger questions about church/state relations: The issue of government and free speech came up in both cases and became a centre for anti-discrimination actions or changes of tactic within atheist groups running the campaigns. However, the protections that are afforded freedom of speech in Australia have been described as relatively weak […] Australia is one of few modern democracies that does not have some form of a Bill of Rights. The Australian atheist bus campaign contributed to an “ongoing debate as to the need for a document which enshrines rights and cannot be tampered with by the different arms of government,” as well as the notion of Australia’s “soft secularity,” and the law’s “non-involvement with religious matters.” It also raised questions about how ‘secular’ Australia was, and what being secular meant. In this case, as with many others, the atheist bus campaign contributed to a larger debate about what it means for a country to be ‘secular’. Overall, each chapter in this volume tells a story about the condition of atheist movements, as well as the acceptability of atheism, for a particular country. In their chapter, “The Atheist Bus Campaign in New Zealand; From Bus to Billboard,” William James Hoverd and Katja Strehle argue that the New Zealand campaign: offers an interesting example that demonstrates how a small informal – yet motivated – group of unaffiliated actors can identify with a global movement and employ a variety of media sources to create significant gains for their atheist position across their nation. But in doing so, an informal group, unbound by formal objectives, communiques, or a set of

Introduction

21

predefined goals, can then extrapolate the general principles of a global movement into their own national context. The campaign was followed in the media and generated significant levels of discussion, especially since, as with many other countries, the advertisements raised issues of free expression, national identity, and the acceptability of controversial messages in public spaces. In this case, the initial advertisements were refused by the country’s main bus service provider, who claimed that “staff and the public expressed ‘distaste and distress’ at the campaign.” The organizers claimed this was discrimination, and a national poll shows that many citizens felt similarly, with 92.5% of respondents agreeing that the bus company’s refusal to run the ads was “unfair and discriminatory,” and only 3.8% of respondents agreeing with the decision because “the ads are in bad taste and would distress people.” The controversy generated public interest and support – financial in terms of donations, but also morale through social media, such as engagement with selecting ideas for new slogans, and heavy traffic on the campaign’s website and Facebook page. The media “displayed a neutral to mildly positive attitude toward the campaign,” and while the organizers did receive some hateful comments from individuals, most religious groups were respectful and some members of religious groups publicly supported what they felt was the campaign’s right to run on buses. On the state of atheism in New Zealand, Hoverd and Strehle conclude that “the campaign had highlighted that there is internal conflict that occurs in New Zealand families and communities between religious and atheist or humanist views, and that there currently exists no easy method or framework to address this conflict.” 1.4 Conclusion The themes discussed above were not meant to be comprehensive, but rather, to introduce the reader to some of the more predominant themes that we noticed while editing this volume. In each case different readers with different focuses could expand upon the themes presented in this volume or unearth other themes, just as Lori G. Beaman has done in the afterword to this volume. The main contribution of this collection is to bring to the surface the difficulties involved when it comes to publicly expressing atheism in many countries around the world, including those that are ostensibly secular, by law or social imagination. The ability, or inability, of atheists in multiple countries to promote their own views is certainly a window into the lives of atheists and atheism around the world, but what is particularly interesting is how these

22

Tomlins and CULHAM Bullivant

campaigns brought up issues regarding the roles, statuses and powers of religions in each country. Even though most Christian or religious advertising can be presented to the public through multiple venues, atheist messages in the public sphere are almost uniformly deemed controversial, or at the very least disrespectful. This phenomena and its prevalence in multiple countries shows the subtle and often pervasive influence that religious sentiments can exert over atheists. Though we have included all of the countries where atheist bus campaigns were attempted during the 2008–2009 era, we could not be completely comprehensive on every aspect of these campaigns. The campaigns reflected the goals of atheist organizations, for example, but the effectiveness of these ads on atheists or even religious people in the general population calls for more investigation. Also, these ads were predominantly designed to encourage discussion. The level to which this was achieved, and whether that discussion is ongoing rather than fleeting would be a valuable area of further study. Another area where further work could be conducted is looking into a comparison of religious organizations that have also experienced resistance to their ads being placed on public transportation. For instance, Islamic organizations, particularly in a predominantly Christian country, may experience similar types of resistance to those found by the authors in this volume. We would also have liked to investigate the somewhat vestigial constitutional/legal issues that privilege religious expression while denying atheist expression (such as blasphemy laws). From this perspective, the historical influence of religion reaches out of the past to maintain a status quo where religion maintains a special distinction. We hope that this international collection of chapters detailing various global atheist bus campaigns, including their particular local and national contexts, encourages you to question your own assumptions about the value or threat of allowing atheist expressions to have a public platform. We also hope this volume encourages you to question the ‘common sense’ behind particular laws in your country, whether they favour religious expression or the expression of an irreligious ‘other’. References Cimino, Richard, and Smith, Christopher. 2007. “Secular Humanism and Atheism beyond Progressive Secularism.” Sociology of Religion. 68.4: 407–424. Edgell, Penny, Joseph Gerteis, Douglas Hartman. 2006. “Atheists as ‘Other’: Moral Boundaries and Cultural Membership in American Society.” American Sociological Review 71.2: 211–234.

Introduction

23

International Humanist and Ethical Union. 2015. Freedom of Thought 2014: A Global Report on the Rights, Legal Status, and Discrimination Against Humanists, Atheists, and the Nonreligious. International Humanist and Ethical Union. http://freethoughtreport .com/download-the-report/ (accessed July 15, 2015). Lee, Lois. 2012. “Research Note: Talking about a Revolution: Terminology for the New Field of Nonreligion Studies.” Journal of Contemporary Religion 27.1: 129–139. Martin, Michael. 2007. The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pew Research Center. 2012. “The Global Religious Landscape.” Pew Research Center. 2015. “The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections.”

chapter 2

Australia: Conflict Not Competition Alan Nixon 2.1 Introduction The atheist bus campaigns began in the United Kingdom on January 6, 2008. It utilised advertisements on the sides of hundreds of London buses, reading “There’s Probably no God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life.”1 The campaign was originally proposed by comedian Ariane Sherine. She was inspired when she saw buses proclaiming doom on those who do not believe in a form of Christianity, and thought a counter campaign was due. It was supported by the British Humanist Association and Richard Dawkins, a biologist and ‘New Atheist’. After this point similar campaigns were proposed around the world, with varying levels of success in terms of public, government and corporate acceptance.2 This chapter analyses the events around the Australian atheist bus campaign run by the Australian Foundation for Atheists (afa Table 2.1).3 They are one of Australia’s most well-known atheist groups and are responsible for both this campaign and the Global Atheist Conventions (2010; 2012) that brought many popular New Atheist speakers to Australia. Australia’s ‘secular neutrality’ will be discussed in light of the refusals of free speech by state regulated and owned advertising companies. Adding to this will be Gary Bouma’s (2012) idea that atheists have been experiencing conflict, not fair competition, in Australia. The religiously shy culture of Australia, combined with limited protections for religion/free speech and the ambiguity of Australia’s secularism, has allowed atheists to have their freedom of speech and rights curtailed in the name of secular neutrality. 1 A. Sherine, 2008, “Atheists – gimme five: Since when is it OK to spread the fear of God from the side of a bus? Let’s get together and distribute reassurance,” The Guardian, http://www .theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jun/20/transport.religion (accessed February 1, 2014). 2 Skeptic’s Dictionary, 2013, Atheist bus (& billboard) campaign, http://www.skepdic.com/athe istbus.html (accessed February 1, 2014). 3 Atheist Foundation of Australia, http://atheistfoundation.org.au/ (accessed February 1, 2014).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004328532_003

Australia: Conflict Not Competition

2.2

25

Conflict Not Competition

Gary Bouma, a Professor of Sociology and an Anglican Minister, has recently expressed that atheists are experiencing conflict rather than competition in Australia. He argues that this is because atheists are not being given the same voice or support that religions have received from public sources. As Bouma relays it: Competitors respect each other and vie for the rewards – in this case, state recognition, popular support, and influence on policy decisions. However, in conflict, one group seeks the elimination of the other; or a coalition of groups seeks to eliminate one group […] Under fair competition, they too [the atheists] would have been awarded an appropriate level of state funding for their conferences in Melbourne, parallel with that given to the Parliament of the World’s Religions held in 2009. But, no, religious groups opposed that and won. New Atheists sought to offer a secular form of ethics education in the time allocated for “religious instruction” in Victorian state schools. Again, the answer was no. What the New Atheists are experiencing is conflict, the attempt to drive them out, to eliminate the competition.4 As mentioned by Bouma, there have been a number of cases where atheists have been denied support due to lobbying by opposition groups. Chaplains have replaced secular councillors in state run schools against parental protests and have had funding expanded with each new government.5 The latest additions to the chaplains program also stipulated that nonreligious councillors could not be hired, in a further blow to the nonreligious.6 Ethics classes, intended to be an alternative to Special Religious Education classes for the nonreligious, were fought and denied on a number of fronts by religious and

4 5 6

G. Bouma, 2012, “A battle beyond belief,” redresstheology.com, https://reddresstheology. com/2012/04/12/a-battle-beyond-belief-by-gary-bouma/ (accessed February 1, 2014). aap, 2014, “School chaplains get $243m over 4 years,” aap, http://www.sbs.com.au/news/ article/2014/05/13/school-chaplains-get-243m-over-4-years (accessed June 13, 2014). E. Borello, 2014, “Budget 2014: Funding for secular counsellors cut in school chaplaincy program,” abc News, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-15/cut-to-secular-advisors -program-in-federal-budget/5455176 (accessed June 13, 2014).

26

NIXON

government groups7 and have always been offered only minimal support.8,9 The Global Atheist Convention (gac 2010) was denied the same funding offered to the Parliament of World Religions.10 However, gac (2012) was later offered funding based on the tourism it would generate.11 Calls to remove prayers in parliament have also been dismissed (Randell-Moon 2010). Most importantly for this paper, state owned and regulated companies have denied atheists free speech. This wider public expression of religious ideas and lack of support for public irreligion would mean that some atheists feel a need to become part of the public discussion. Gaining the right to free speech is one step towards becoming a competitor in Australia, in Bouma’s terms, rather than a marginalized voice that experiences conflict. On November 2, 2008, the Atheist Foundation of Australia (henceforth afa) launched a funding campaign to support atheist advertising on Australian buses.12 The President of the Foundation at the time, David Nicholls, stated that “It’s very difficult to get atheists to agree to a bus slogan.”13 Despite this, they eventually agreed and the chosen slogan would read “Atheism – Because there is no credible evidence.” Members and supporters of the afa pledged $16,000 to fund the advertisements on buses. Nicholls stated in an article for The Age that: 7

8

9

10

11

12

13

D. Hill, 2013, “Ethics class injustice sets wrong example for schoolchildren,” The Sydney Morning Herald, http://www.smh.com.au/comment/ethics-class -injustice-sets-wrong-example-for-schoolchildren-20130327-2gujb.html (accessed June 13 2014). abc News, 2012, “Parents ‘left in the dark’ about ethics classes,” abc News, 2014, http:// www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-05/parents-27left-in-the-dark27-about-ethics-classes/ 4409034 (accessed June 13). J. Tovey, 2013, “Ethics classes at risk as plea for tax relief refused,” The Sydney Morning Herald, http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/ethics-classes-at-risk-as-plea-for-tax-relief-refused -20130301-2fbj7.html (accessed June 13, 2014). C. Stevenson, 2009, “Govt. Funding for Convention,” Australian Foundation for Atheists Forum, http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=2493 (accessed June 13, 2014). M. Bachelard, 2011, “Government comes to atheist party,” The Age – Victoria, http://www .theage.com.au/victoria/government-comes-to-atheist-party-20110514-1enkv.html (acces­ sed June 13, 2014). D. Nicholls, 2008, “Atheists Pursue Redress with Anti-discrimination Legislation,” afa Media Releases, http://atheistfoundation.org.au/media-release/atheists-pursue-redresswith-anti-discrimination-legislation/ (accessed June 13, 2014). The Religion Report, 2008, “A rejection for atheists,” abc News, http://www.abc.net.au/ra dionational/programs/religionreport/a-rejection-for-atheists-a-new-book-for-interfaith/ 3161756 (accessed June 13, 2014).

Australia: Conflict Not Competition

27

We are doing it to be part of the wider campaign, and to raise awareness that there is a thing called atheism as an option for people to look at and see if there is any value for them.14 The concept of secular neutrality allowing free speech in Australia would be tested when the foundation approached apn Outdoor (apn), a company that manages public transport advertising in most Australian states. According to Nicholls, apn said that they had problems with the wording of the proposed message. After the afa had made two sets of changes to the wording, apn said they simply were not able to accommodate the advertisements.15 By November 26, 2008 the afa had put out a media release stating that the company responsible for bus advertising had rejected the second phrase “Atheism – Celebrate Reason!” In general it seems that apn took a closed-lipped approach, refusing to comment on the controversy.16,17,18 However, in an article for The Age, apn’s general manager of marketing, Paul McBeth said that public buses were owned by state governments, who stipulated in agreements with apn that any advertisement that might offend the community was not permitted on public buses.19 This meant that apn was blaming state regulation for the refusal, bringing this into the domain of the state and freedom of expression. A similar plan for atheist bus adverts in Tasmania was thrown out by the state-owned bus company, Metro. Nicholls said he was told by Metro Tasmania, in effect, that the slogan was “too hot to handle,” again making it about the issue of free speech.20 14

15

16

17 18

19 20

B. Zwartz, 2010, “Bus advertising just the ticket for atheists,” The Age National, http://www .theage.com.au/national/bus-advertising-just-the-ticket-for-atheists-20100301-pdlg.html (accessed June 13, 2014). L. Parker, 2009, “Atheist Messages Misses Local Bus,” The Sydney Morning Herald, http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/atheist-message-misses-local-bus/2009/01/08/ 1231004199169.html (accessed June 13, 2014). The Religion Report, 2008, “A rejection for atheists,” abc News, http://www.abc.net.au/ radionational/programs/religionreport/a-rejection-for-atheists-a-new-book-for-inter faith/3161756 (accessed June 13, 2014). B. Trembath, 2008, “Atheists Can’t Believe Ad Knockback,” abc – The World Today, http:// www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2008/s2430227.htm (accessed June 13 2014). D. Nicholls, 2009, “The Australian Atheist bus campaign in perspective,” afa Media Releases, http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=90 (accessed June 13, 2014). B. Zwartz, 2009, “Atheists Cry Foul on Ads,” The Age National, http://www.theage.com.au/ national/atheists-cry-foul-on-ads-20090128-7s0p.html (accessed June 13, 2014). M. Paine, 2008, “Atheists Challenge Metro: Banned Bus Slogan ‘Too Hot to Handle’,” High Beam Research, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-190339550.html (accessed June 13, 2014).

28

NIXON

The afa responded to Metro Tasmania’s refusal by saying that in the past they had run ads from various religious groups, logging and conservation groups, including the anti-abortion, Human Life Protection Society and religious messages such as the famous “John 3:16.”21,22 Nicholls stated “They don’t seem to be opposed to controversy but they seem to be opposed to atheism.”23 Metro’s Tony Sim said that they had changed policy to ban controversial material in June that year, when they reaffirmed their advertising policy that banned “anything that damages Metro’s reputation.”24 Both the Victorian and Tasmanian cases would later lead to legal action on the grounds of religious discrimination. The afa began taking action through anti-discrimination boards against the advertising companies that rejected the advertisement, citing breeches of ‘freedom of expression’.25 The afa and Metro Tasmania reached a deal after conciliation was ordered by the Office of the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner.26,27,28 “This is a great day for freedom of expression in Tasmania, it is a sign of the times” David Nicholls said. Buses were seen in the streets of Hobart on Monday January 4, 2010.29 The ads read “Atheism – Celebrate Reason” (Figure 2.1). The afa formally complained of religious discrimination to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, “Following legal advice 21

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” This verse found in John (3: 16), is one of the most famous bible verses. Since it expresses Christianity in a succinct way it is often used in church campaigns. 22 abc News, 2008, “Metro Accused of Discrimination,” abc News, http://www.abc.net.au/ news/2008-12-10/metro-accused-of-discrimination/236030 (accessed June 13, 2014). 23 M. Paine, 2008, “Atheists Challenge Metro: Banned Bus Slogan ‘Too Hot to Handle’,” High Beam Research, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-190339550.html (accessed 13 June 2014). 24 Ibid. 25 D. Nicholls, 2009, “The Australian Atheist bus campaign in perspective.” afa Media Releases; http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=90 (accessed June 13, 2014). 26 abc News, 2008, “Metro Accused of Discrimination,” abc News, http://www.abc.net.au/ news/2008-12-10/metro-accused-of-discrimination/236030 (accessed June 13, 2014). 27 M. Paine, 2008, “Atheists Challenge Metro: Banned Bus Slogan ‘Too Hot to Handle’,” High Beam Research, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-190339550.html (accessed June 13, 2014). 28 abc News, 2008, “Metro Accused of Discrimination,” abc News, http://www.abc.net.au/ news/2008-12-10/metro-accused-of-discrimination/236030 (accessed June 13, 2014). 29 D. Nicholls, 2010, “All Aboard Tasmanian Buses!” afa Media Releases, http://atheistfoun dation.org.au/media-release/all-aboard-tasmanian-buses/ (accessed June 13, 2014).

Australia: Conflict Not Competition

29

Figure 2.1  Tasmanian atheist buses on the streets of Hobart Monday January 4, 2010

we’ve decided to lodge the complaint” said Mr. Nicholls,30,31 “It’s unfortunate we have to go down this path to achieve justice, but there’s no grudge here, it’s just a simple matter of what is right.”32 In March 2010, after a win for the afa, buses started carrying atheist signs in Melbourne.33 The signs were on the backs of 24 buses until March,29 when the number rose to 40 and the advertisements were included on the sides as well.34 Nicholls said the ads would tie in with the afa’s first atheist convention, the 2010 Global Atheist Convention, to 30 31

32 33

34

B. Zwartz, 2009, “Atheists Cry Foul on Ads,” The Age National, http://www.theage.com.au/ national/atheists-cry-foul-on-ads-20090128-7s0p.html (accessed June 13, 2014). JukeBoxParables, 2009, “Atheist Bus Campaign Banned in Australia,” JukeBoxParables, http://jukeboxparables.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/atheist-bus-campaign-banned-in -australia/ (accessed June 13, 2014). M. Paine, 2008, “Atheists Challenge Metro: Banned Bus Slogan ‘Too Hot to Handle’,” High Beam Research, viewed June 13, 2014, http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-190339550.html. B. Zwartz, 2010, “Bus advertising just the ticket for atheists,” The Age National, http://www .theage.com.au/national/bus-advertising-just-the-ticket-for-atheists-20100301-pdlg .html (accessed June 13, 2014). Skeptic’s Dictionary, 2013, Atheist bus (& billboard) campaign, http://www.skepdic.com/ atheistbus.html (accessed February 1, 2014).

30

NIXON

be held in Melbourne in March.35 The convention had already sold out and featured leading public atheists such as biologist Richard Dawkins, philosophers a.c. Grayling and Peter Singer, and ex-Muslim feminist Taslima Nasrin. Another challenge came in a more civil form with the afa running the slogan on buses at the Sydney Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras on March 7, 2009 in order to circumvent the advertising companies.36,37,38 For the 2012 Global Atheist Convention the afa again advertised on public transport in Melbourne. This time using the more provocative “If God Exists, I Hope He Has a Good Excuse” (Figure 2.2):

Figure 2.2 Atheist bus ads before the gac conference in Melbourne 35

36

37

38

D. Nicholls, 2010, “afa Bus Advertising Campaign Moving Ahead!” afa Media Releases, http://atheistfoundation.org.au/media-release/afa-bus-advertising-campaign-moving -ahead/ (accessed February 1, 2014). JukeBoxParables, 2009, “Atheist Bus Campaign Banned in Australia,” JukeBoxParables, http://jukeboxparables.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/atheist-bus-campaign-banned-in -australia/ (accessed June 13, 2014). C. Marcus, 2009, “Revellers Work Themselves Into a Leather and then Party,” afa Forum, http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=450 (accessed June 13, 2014). Sydney Atheists, 2009, “Sydney Queer Atheists Mardi Gras Bus Drive,” Meetup.com. http://www.meetup.com/sydneyatheists/events/9558296/ (accessed June 13, 2014).

Australia: Conflict Not Competition

31

The afa stated that the intention this time was to inform people about the gac who otherwise might not have known.39 The Australian atheists were eventually victorious in a number of their actions against advertisers; however, they were blocked from proceeding with many of their projects and cited inadequate laws as contributing to the issue. In a Media Release on the November 26, 2008, Nicholls said, “I am flabbergasted. This is extremely disappointing and a severe blow to freedom of expression in Australia.”40 In another reaction to the refusals, abc interviewer David Rutledge referenced Australia’s supposedly strong secularity and expressed surprise at the refusals when interviewing Nicholls of the afa, when he asked, “Are you surprised by that? In a country like Australia, one of the most secular societies in the world, that this would happen?”41 Reinforcing this assumption was a second question: The question about why you’re doing this, as I said, Australia is a very secular society… Why, in Australia, do you feel the need for a campaign? What is it in Australia that you’re concerned about?42 Moreover, in a conversation with Academic Greg Clarke, the Director of the Macquarie Christian Studies Institute and the Centre for Public Christianity in Sydney, Rutledge asked: In Australia, one of the most secular societies in the world, are you surprised that an atheist message has been ruled out of court for public viewing? Clarke responded, “I am a little surprised because I think the public’s up for the discussion.”43 He discussed this with regard to freedom of speech later in the interview: 39

D. Nicholls, 2012, “The Atheist Foundation of Australia Back on Buses,” Atheistconvention. org.au. http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/2012/03/15/atheist-foundation-of-australiaback-on-buses/ (accessed June 13, 2014). 40 D. Nicholls, 2008, “Bus Slogan Rejected!” afa Media Releases, http://atheistfoundation. org.au/media-release/bus-slogan-rejected/ (accessed June 13, 2014). 41 The Religion Report, 2008, “A rejection for atheists,” abc News, http://www.abc.net.au/ra dionational/programs/religionreport/a-rejection-for-atheists-a-new-book-for-interfaith/ 3161756 (accessed June 13, 2014). 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid.

32

NIXON

I actually think we must favour freedom of expression wherever we can, as long as it’s done with a level of civility that means we actually do engage with the issues, rather than just fighting with each other.44 Others in the community have expressed the idea that this may indicate the curtailing of speech freedoms. Associate Professor Carole Cusack of the Department of Studies in Religion at the University of Sydney said, “If religions can buy advertising space, then why not atheists?”45 Friar Peter McGrath, of St Francis of Assisi Catholic parish in Paddington, agreed, stating, “The [atheists] should have a right to advertise. They should be able to say what they want.”46 Thus many in the community, including those in the Christian majority, felt that the atheists were experiencing conflict not competition. In an abc radio interview in November 2008, Nicholls was asked by the presenter why he ­believed the afa had been refused advertising space. Nicholls responded ­(referencing Richard Dawkins) that the issue seemed to be a form of cultural censorship derived from the traditional view that religion has a privileged status. This status means that even mild criticism of religion is perceived as offensive or critical. He then went on to say that he did not think the wording proposed was critical of religion at all, “we purposely set out not to offend people, just to make people think.”47 He concluded by suggesting that it was a “rejection of atheists having their name out there.”48 The refusals were viewed by many as a way to shut atheists out of the public discussion, rather than allowing their views to be aired alongside others as would be expected in a secular democracy. There are a number of factors concerning Australian culture and politics which may have contributed to the conflict that atheists were experiencing at this time. These include the fact that religion has often been viewed as a private and quiet affair, the lack of protections for free speech, and a Christian bias in political institutions, as discussed below.

44

H. Mehta, 2008, “Atheist Bus Campaign… in Australia, Ad Company Says No,” Friendly Atheist, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/11/25/atheist-bus-campaign -in-australia-ad-company-says-no/ (accessed June 13, 2014). 45 L. Parker, 2009, “Atheist Messages Misses Local Bus,” The Sydney Morning Herald, http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/atheist-message-misses-local-bus/2009/01/08/ 1231004199169.html (accessed June 13, 2014). 46 Ibid. 47 The Religion Report, 2008, “A rejection for atheists,” abc News, http://www.abc.net.au/ radionational/programs/religionreport/a-rejection-for-atheists-a-new-book-for-inter faith/3161756 (accessed June 13, 2014). 48 Ibid.

Australia: Conflict Not Competition

2.3

33

A Shy Hope in the Heart

According to Bouma (2006) Australia has a particular attitude towards religions and spiritualities which could have contributed to the conflict atheists were experiencing. Using Swanson’s (1960) idea that the experience a society has with social structure influences the forms of theology present within it, Bouma (2006) suggests that Australia’s early experiences of religion shaped the stances taken on religion and spirituality. He (2006: Kindle Edition) suggests that: The influences and effects of Australia having long had an absent ultimate authority in political, economic, social and cultural life can be seen in the distant, indistinct, low-expectation relationship with the transcendent that I have come to consider characteristic of Australia’s religious and spiritual life. Australia’s religion begins in a period of low rates of church participation, low levels of spiritual enthusiasm, popular disaffection for religious matters and indifference of the commoner to religious matters (Bouma 2006). Religion was mainly tied to the Church of England, which had the main function of providing discipline and authority rather than compassion and caring. It was used to civilise the prisoners of Australia’s penal colonies. Through this ‘civilising’ process, religion and morality became connected. Thus, although Australia was originally born as a modern secular state, religion was part of this modernising process (Possamai 2008). This led to a backlash, where religion was often associated with those who would like to deny fun to the population, the ‘wowsers’ in older Australian vernacular (Bouma 2006; Frame 2009). Bouma (2006) argues that a society’s religious institution consists of norms around spiritual and religious practice. These norms can include things such as intensity, expressivity, frequency, periodicity and cyclicity. Due to Australia’s historical trends, Bouma (2006) suggests that Australia’s norms on spirituality and religion are: • Intensity – a strong tendency toward being subdued, laid back • Expressivity – a strong tendency towards the shy, withdrawn and not exuberant • Frequency – a strong tendency towards infrequent and occasional attendance • Periodicity – annual/biannual participation is more acceptable than weekly • Cyclicity – a tendency for participation to occur early or late in the life cycle • Consistency – a low level of consistency between belief and practice is accepted

34 • • • • •

NIXON

Singularity – persons are expected to identify with one religion Proximity – the transcendent is expected to be distant, localised and diffuse Efficacy – the transcendent is subject to influence, trustworthy and effective Access – the transcendent to be accessed directly and through professionals Social location – religious groups are expected to be on the margins, not central

Australia’s religious and spiritual expression is put forward as a “shy hope in the heart” (Bouma 2006), rather than an all-encompassing belief structure; it is not public, it is not loud and it is hopeful and therefore sacred to some degree. In summary, with relation to this chapter, religious groups are expected to offer beliefs and practices that are not highly demanding and religious expression should not be exuberant in public. Groups that ask for higher levels of conformity will struggle to attract followers and may be sanctioned for their public expression, but there is a sacred place for spiritual ideas. As Bouma (2006: Kindle Edition) notes: People who are ‘too religious’ in Australia may be sanctioned by scornful looks and derisive remarks. It is OK to be religious, just do not overdo it. On the other hand, someone who is stridently negative about spirituality may well be avoided. This is of relevance to the reception that atheist advertising has received in Australia. The overt and public nature of the advertisements and their perceived attack on spirituality may go against the public religious and spiritual norms of the Australian society. As Maddox (2010b) explains, Australians barely think about religion in their daily lives. In interviews I conducted with 39 Australian Atheists in 2011 (for a separate project), most participants stated that they felt Australia was very agnostic and that they received very little negativity towards their atheism from other Australians. Even when discussing more negative impacts such as social exclusion, impacts were mitigated by the idea that these were not common occurrences, perhaps happening once in a person’s life rather than being ongoing. There were some family cases where the impacts were more apparent and long lasting, but these were the rarity in my sample. As one of my interview participants stated: Australia is to a large extent an agnostic country, we treat religious leaders the same as we treat politicians to a great extent which is wonderful.

Australia: Conflict Not Competition

35

Many seemed more concerned with events overseas than here in Australia. This is most likely due to the generally quiet nature of Australia’s religion. An article in the The Georgia Straight around the time of the bus campaigns stated that if The objective was to undermine people’s belief in God, then turning the atheist buses loose in Britain was largely a waste of time, because most British people don’t believe in God anyway.49 This is also largely true in Australia in many ways. However, the specifically Australian issues of the refusal of ethics classes, the use of school chaplains and the refusal of the bus ads were discussed by 70% of my participants. Thus, despite the perception of Australia as an agnostic and shy country when it comes to religion, there were clearly situations where Australian atheists felt they were not getting a fair hearing and that expression of some worldviews was being privileged over others. Though religion in Australia has traditionally been a “shy hope in the heart” (as Bouma suggests), it has become more publicly expressed over the last decades and has felt less sanctions for doing so (Maddox 2005; 2010a; Possamai 2008). Maddox (2010a: 322) argues that: During the decade of conservative government under Prime Minister John Howard, religion acquired a political importance long absent from Australian public life. Maddox (2010b) states that it was a diffuse form of ‘noble lie’, in which religion was good for the morality of other people, which allowed this to occur. As Possamai (2008) puts it, in some ways Australia was beginning to go through a “shy de-secularisation process,” as religion re-emerged into the public sphere in various forms. What had disappeared, says Maddox (2010b: 359), “were the skills and alertness to be able to identify and understand religion’s impact, leaving a dangerous ignorance.” Thus the norm of quiet religion appears to have been changing, but the sacred place for spiritual views and the norm around speaking against religiously and spiritually based views has remained (Maddox 2010b). This increase in public expressions of religion led to an increase in public expressions of irreligion, with groups such as the afa rising in popularity in 49

G. Dyer, 2009, “Gwynne Dyer: Atheist Bus Campaign Preaches to the Converted,” The Georgia Straight. http://www.straight.com/article-200513/gwynne-dyer-atheist-bus-campaign-preaches-converted (accessed June 13, 2014).

36

NIXON

the same period, particularly since the advent of the ‘New Atheist’ movement. Around the time of the bus campaigns in 2008, Australian atheism was beginning somewhat of a renaissance due to the support of figures linked to the New Atheism and popular entertainment acts such as musician/comedian Tim Minchin. As an article in the The Advertiser newspaper on April 11, 2009, stated: There certainly seems a new acceptance among the public for doing just that [ridiculing religion]. Musical comedian Tim Minchin has been playing to crowds who applaud wildly as he mocks believers and sends up creationists. Like Downs, Minchin cites the rise of the Pentecostal churches and the emergence of Family First as reasons atheists are taking a more aggressive stance.50 Likewise in a Radio interview on abc radio presenter David Rutledge stated: […] atheism has raised its profile and you could say its respectability in recent years with very successful books by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens among others.51 Indeed the census following these years saw a marked increase in those identifying as nonreligious and atheist as shown in Figures 2.3 and 2.4 (abs 2013). This is also supported by other data from a 2004 study by Monash University (Webber, Mason and Singleton 2005), the Australian Catholic University and the Christian Research Association which found that just 48 percent of people born between 1976 and 1990 believe in God.52 Adding to this data, the 2011 census revealed that among 25-year-olds, more than a third said they had no religion or did not state a religion (abs 2013). The ranks of nonreligious have grown in the last few decades, however, the make-up of the nonreligious category overall is less clear. Neither religious nor atheist groups have much faith in the census data, both citing possible over and under-reporting in various categories. 50

51

52

A. Fenton, 2009, “Faith No More – Atheists in the City of Churches,” Courier Mail, http:// www.couriermail.com.au/news/faith-no-more-atheists-in-the-city-of-churches/story -e6freon6-1225698664255 (accessed June 13, 2014). The Religion Report, 2008, “A rejection for atheists,” abc News, http://www.abc.net.au/ radionational/programs/religionreport/a-rejection-for-atheists-a-new-book-for-inter faith/3161756 (accessed June 13, 2014). A. Fenton, 2009, “Faith No More – Atheists in the City of Churches,” Courier Mail, http:// www.couriermail.com.au/news/faith-no-more-atheists-in-the-city-of-churches/story -e6freon6-1225698664255 (accessed June 13, 2014).

Australia: Conflict Not Competition

37

Figure 2.3 The percentage of Australians reporting no religion from 1911 to 2011

Figure 2.4 The percentage of Australians reporting no religion from 1971 to 2011

This is because this type of data was designed to measure identification with religious belief – not belief itself or its absence. The situation can lead to people selecting their ancestral religion when they are actually nonreligious, or conversely to people who believe less structured supernatural ideas choosing the nonreligious category. However, there are other indicators to back up the rise of public atheist voices during this period, such as the aforementioned entertainers, the New Atheists and their books, the gac conferences and an increasing online presence (Nixon 2012). This public rise of atheism met resistance on a number of fronts and this could be due, at least in part,

38

NIXON

to the legacy of shy and quiet religion in Australia. Despite the recent public expressions of religion as morality, legacy prohibitions against perceived public criticism of spirituality (particularly Christian), may still remain. 2.4

An Australian Bill of Rights

The limited nature of Australia’s constitutional and human rights protections left room only for civil solutions to the bus ad refusals. As this case and others in Australia have shown, such civil and democratic solutions are also open to influence by religious preferences. Maddox (2005: 313) describes the Australian attitude towards secularity as a “She’ll be right”53 assumption that church-state issues can sort themselves out in the civil arena. However, the cases above and other recent issues involving atheists such as the chaplaincy program, ethics class issues, and gac funding refusals indicate that the system as it stands may be lacking in protections for minority, and particularly nonreligious, views. The atheist bus campaign has met with resistance in several places around the world. In countries with similar histories, but greater legal protections like Canada and New Zealand, there was the option of legal rather than just civil action. In a media release on June 14, 2011, Nicholls lamented another refusal by Billboards Australia on a government site run by Railcorp and connected the issue to a lack of a Bill of Rights in Australia: It is another example where, because Australia doesn’t have a Bill of Rights, arbitrary discrimination is possible.54 The Canadian case illustrates how a Bill of Rights may have helped Australian atheists in their actions. The Freethought Association of Canada reported that it had collected $21,500 to buy atheist ads on buses in Toronto. A campaign in Calgary met little resistance, but several other Canadian cities rejected the atheist ads. Atheist advertisements were, at least initially, rejected in Halifax,55 53 54

55

Popular Australian phrase that means “don’t worry about the situation too much” or “the issue will be fine on its own.” D. Nicholls, 2011, “Atheists Refused Advertising Space Again!” afa Media Releases, http:// atheistfoundation.org.au/media-release/atheists-refused-advertising-space-again/ (accessed June 13, 2014). AtheistBus.ca, 2009, “Show Your Support at Halifax Events: Rally, Meeting, Debate,” AtheistBus.ca, http://atheistbus.ca/2009/02/23/show-your-support-at-halifax-events-rally-meet ing-debate/ (accessed June 13, 2014).

Australia: Conflict Not Competition

39

Vancouver,56 and Ottawa.57 The Ottawa city council reversed its decision to ban the ads when it was told that the ban probably would not hold up in court and similar decisions have been made in other rejected campaigns.58 The Supreme Court of Canada struck down transit policies banning all political advertisements, saying they violate rights to free speech set down in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.59 Australia lacks a charter of this kind, which has been pointed out as an issue by the afa during the advertising refusals. Similarly, in a piece for the Sydney Morning Herald, Nicholls of the afa connects the freedom of speech issues atheists were experiencing with the lack of a human rights act in Australia: Australia is in desperate need of a human rights and equal opportunities act, it’s clear that western Europe, the us and Britain have better laws than we do when it comes to […] respecting freedom of speech.60 The New Zealand (nz) case can also be used to shed some light on how this would have helped the Australian atheists. In 2009, the nz atheist bus campaign raised $20,000 in the space of a few days to place the message “There’s Probably no God, Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life” on the sides of buses.61 NZBus, which had previously accepted the advertisements, suddenly changed its mind and refused to carry them after pre-emptive complaints from members of the public. The problem for NZBus was that their behaviour was unlawful. The nz Human Rights Act 1993 makes it clear that religion, or its absence, is a prohibited ground of discrimination – making it illegal to

56

57

58 59 60

61

The Huffington Post, b.c. 2013, “Atheist Ads Banned in Vancouver,” Huffington Post, http:// www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/12/06/atheist-ads-vancouver_n_4399120.html (accessed June 13, 2014). AtheistBus.ca, 2009, “Atheist Bus Hits Toronto Streets and Brick Wall in Ottawa,” AtheistBus.ca, http://atheistbus.ca/2009/02/15/atheist-bus-hits-toronto-streets-and-brick-wall -in-ottawa/ (accessed June 13, 2014). AtheistBus.ca, 2009, “Approval in Ottawa,” AtheistBus.ca, http://atheistbus.ca/2009/03/11/ approval-in-ottawa/ (accessed June 13, 2014). AtheistBus.ca, 2009, “Atheist Ads on the Horizon in Halifax,” AtheistBus.ca, http://atheist bus.ca/2009/07/#sthash.iBh9IUA6.dpuf (accessed June 13, 2014). L. Parker, 2009, “Atheist Messages Misses Local Bus,” The Sydney Morning Herald, http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/atheist-message-misses-local-bus/2009/01/08/ 1231004199169.html (accessed June 13, 2014). No Right Turn, 2010, “Silencing the Atheist Bus Campaign,” No Right Turn, http://norightturn .blogspot.com.au/2010/02/silencing-atheist-bus-campaign.html (accessed June 13, 2014).

40

NIXON

discriminate on religious grounds in the provision of goods and services.62 Just as a shopkeeper cannot refuse to sell their product to someone based on their race or beliefs, NZBus cannot refuse to sell their product (advertising) to atheists. NZBus refused mediation through the Human Rights Commission.63 At the time, the atheist bus campaign was looking at taking them to the Human Rights Review Tribunal.64 By 2011 the case had been accepted by the tribunal and was due for review in later years.65 They pushed forward with a billboard campaign that began in Auckland and was successful in many locations.66 ­According to Tim from the nz campaign site, the Auckland billboards provoked one complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority, but the Authority ruled that the billboards do not breach the advertising code, which allows for “robust expressions of opinion.” However, unlike nz, Australia also does not have a Human Rights Act (Randell-Moon 2010; Maddox 2010b; Gelber 2009). The issue of government and free speech came up in both cases and became a centre for anti-discrimination actions or changes of tactic within atheist groups running the campaigns. However, the protections for freedom of speech in Australia have been described as relatively weak (Chesterman 2000; Gelber 2009). Australia is one of few modern democracies that does not have some form of a Bill of Rights (D’Cruz 2007). Gelber (2009) cites the outcomes of the National Consultation on Human Rights launched by the Rudd Government in December 2008, which suggested that human rights can be better protected in Australia by adopting two strategies. The first is the active pursuit of human rights education in the broader community, and the second is the adoption of a federal Human Rights Act (Human Rights Consultation Committee 2009). Gelber (2009) argues, through a discussion of speech curtailments that have occurred through anti-terrorism laws in Australia, that freedom of speech is one of the core issues at the heart of the idea of a Bill of Rights. The merit of this argument is reflected in the recent enactment of a Bill of Rights by nations that had previously relied upon the common law tradition, such 62

Parliamentary Council Office, 1993, “Human Rights act 1993,” Government of New Zealand, http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304475.html#DLM30 4475 (accessed June 13, 2014). 63 NoGod.org.nz, 2008–2012, “Atheist Bus Campaign,” NoGod.org.nz, http://www.nogod.org .nz/ (accessed June 13, 2014). 64 New Zealand Atheist Bus Campaign Media Release, 2010, “Atheist Bus Campaign Determined to Roll on,” Scoop.co.nz, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/CU1002/S00380.htm (accessed June 13, 2014). 65 NoGod.org.nz, 2008–2012, “Atheist Bus Campaign,” NoGod.org.nz, http://www.nogod.org .nz/ (accessed June 13, 2014). 66 Ibid.

Australia: Conflict Not Competition

41

as Canada and New Zealand and the avenues for legal redress in subsequent cases (Williams 1999). There have been many attempts to bring about a Bill of Rights for Australia. These have been either in the form of a statutory Bill of Rights enacted by the Federal Parliament or as amendments to the Australian Constitution. Every attempt has failed (Williams 1999). Moreover, Galligan and Larking (2007) argue that the evidence suggests countries with a Bill of Rights are not automatically better at protecting human rights than those that do not. The lack of an Australian Bill of Rights or Human Rights Act reflects the views of the original framers of the Australian Constitution in the 1890s (Williams 1999). The prevailing view at the time was that Australia did not need a Bill of Rights because basic freedoms were adequately protected by the common law and by the good sense of elected representatives (Williams 1999). Connected to this idea, one main reason cited for the resistance to a Bill of Rights in Australia is that the language could be constructed widely and judicial interpretation gives judges an influence that they do not deserve, given that they are unelected officials (Gibbs 2001). This could actually end up as an issue for minorities too, if unelected judges of particular political persuasions make decisions that affect the rights of a minority (D’Cruz 2007). Connected to this idea is the view articulated by Michael Kirby, that a fixed set of rights could both ignore new issues arising with respect to rights and protect those that are no longer important (Kirby 1994). A Bill of Rights is seen as a fixed and inert document so it would arguably only address issues that were of concern at the time of adoption. An example of this is the right to bear arms in the us, which is arguably made for another time, but is now very hard to revoke due to being enshrined in the constitution. In Australia, only 8 out of 44 proposed amendments to the Constitution have ever been passed (D’Cruz 2007). This could mean old ideas entrenched in the constitution would be very hard to change. As Williams stated in 1999: The record of failed reform in this area [… suggests that…a]n attempt to introduce an Australian Bill of Rights should not be based upon judicial innovation. Instead, it should be built upon the commitment and participation of the Australian people and their elected representatives. Hence, reform that seeks to bring about a statement of the rights of the Australian people should be facilitated by the Federal Parliament, and not by the courts. As per the quote from Williams (1999) above, due to these potential issues, it is often perceived that parliament could address human rights issues more aptly than a Bill of Rights, since it is more adaptable to change and can remain

42

NIXON

abreast with the needs of society (D’Cruz 2007). Thus, there is ongoing debate as to the need for a document which enshrines rights and cannot be tampered with by the different arms of government. However, the lack of a Bill of Rights in Australia is surely an issue for minority groups and this is compounded by the soft secularity that Australia has generally favoured. 2.5

Australia’s Soft Secularity

Recently, many Australians have criticised the ability of the Australian Parliament to ignore human rights and the reluctance of judges to challenge the Parliament on these grounds (D’Cruz 2007). Australia’s current weak form of secularity could interact badly with a parliament governed Bill of Rights being suggested by those like Williams (1999). This is at least partly due to the supposedly neutral, yet in reality, Christian infused state institutions of Australia. As Asad (2003) has discussed, the operation of secularism and the role of religion within state institutions is influenced by the historical and cultural context of the particular nation state under examination. In this view, secular neutrality does not simply separate the secular and non-secular, but seeks to justify what aspects of the non-secular may validly interact with secular state institutions (Asad 2003). While some countries, like the United States of ­America, do officially have a strict separation of church and state, others like Australia have often permitted more flexible church state relations (Puls 1998 cited in Randell-Moon 2010). According to both Randell-Moon (2010) and Maddox (2010b), Australia’s complacent attitude towards political secularity draws attention away from religious discrimination occurring to Australian citizens and groups, such as those described in this chapter. Randell-Moon (2010) suggests that the law’s ‘secular neutrality’ and non-involvement with religious matters must be critically re-thought; Australia has a need to evaluate what secularism is supposed to be achieving and what it does achieve in practice. As pointed out by Maddox (2010b), debates about the place of religion in politics within Australia often revolve around the issue of whether or not Australia is in fact a secular country. Both proponents and deniers of Australia as a secular country draw on the same set of resources to make their arguments (Maddox 2010b). According to Maddox (2010b), the ambiguity of the sources used and the various interpretations of protagonists around what a secular society should be, make this seemingly contradictory situation possible. In order to make the situation in Australia clear, Maddox (2010b) describes a difference between political and social secularism. The first, political secularism, deals with the way relationships between religion and the state are managed.

Australia: Conflict Not Competition

43

The politically secular ideal of neutrality suggests that the state should neither privilege nor discriminate against any religion (Randell-Moon 2010). The second, social secularism, describes the level of religious practice or belief found within the citizens of a particular state. Maddox (2010b) goes on to suggest that Australia most certainly qualifies as a secular state in a social sense, but that the extent of Australia’s political secularism is arguable. She discusses the various commentator views on the status of Australia’s political secularism, concluding that it is at least a controversial matter. This has left negotiations open over the proper public place of religion and created a space of conflict in regards to public policy and religious voices. As Maddox (2010b) and Chavura (2011) discuss, there are no official protections for religions or against religions in Australia besides Section 116 of the constitution. Section 116 (s. 116) prohibits the establishment of a state religion, or the creation of laws that interfere with the free exercise of religion, as stated in the constitution: The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth coa 2003: 43

The section does appear to protect individual religious freedoms, but as many have pointed out, it has some limitations in the Australian case (Chavura 2011; Randell-Moon 2010; Maddox 2010b). Maddox (2010b) outlines the high court decisions that have interpreted s. 116 in ways that privilege the state’s rights over those of individual’s. Randell-Moon (2010) puts forward some limitations as: 1.

2.

The provisions are not binding on state and territory governments – states do not in theory have to provide religious protection – though all but South Australia do. This means that individual state decisions can influence individual rights. The Australian constitution does not function as a bill of rights as it does in the us – the high court of Australia is more concerned with the scope of Commonwealth’s ability to make laws that maintain the states neutrality – How a law might influence individuals is a secondary concern of the high court.

The first point can be seen in the case of Queensland state education as described in The Australian Book of Atheism (Wilson 2010). Queensland

44

NIXON

education had the word ‘secular’ removed from its guidelines in 1910 and has not had it replaced since. In fact, in 2010, the education minister of Queensland, the Honorable Mr. Geoff Wilson mla, wrote to the Australian Secular Lobby (asl) saying that “the government currently has no plans to re-introduce the word ‘secular’ into legislation” (Wilson 2010: 109). Moreover, the Queensland Studies Authority, the body that decides what Queensland students learn, declines to remove the teaching of creationism and intelligent design from classrooms in the state (Wilson 2010). According to Wilson (2010), all of this has been accepted by successive education ministers and state premiers, without exception. This has, according to Wilson (2010), led to the teaching and evangelising of religion to students, without the permission of parents, via Special Religious Education (sre) classes and the School Chaplaincy Program. Thus, the stance that a particular Australian state takes toward religion can potentially have large effects on the individual rights of citizens and their children to choose their level of exposure to (particularly Christian) religion. Though referenda in 1944 and 1988 sought to extend s. 116 to the states, they were unsuccessful (Maddox 2010b). Only Tasmania has a Constitution Act (1934) that protects religious freedom and prevents religious tests. Thus most states still currently have no obligation to enforce s. 116. For example, South Australia’s Supreme Court found in Grace Bible vs. Reedman (1984), that “there is no legal remedy available to any person who believes that his or her right to freedom of religion or belief has been violated by the state Parliament or Government.” ­Although there are laws that protect people from religious discrimination, they are not linked to the federal constitution and therefore they are governed by state parliaments. In addition to being ineffective at preventing state aid to religion (RandellMoon 2010; Maddox 2010b; Wilson 2010), s. 116 has also been limited in its ability to protect individual religious freedom. Maddox (2010b) argues that due to minimal interpretations by the High Court of Australia: If an individual’s right to religious freedom conflicts with the interests of the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth wins. Randell-Moon (2010) argues through an analysis of the report Conviction with Compassion (CwC; Commonwealth of Australia 2000), that there is an assumption of religious neutrality in Australian politics that in-fact allows the colonial religion to behave in a privileged way. The report itself acknowledges that the Australian constitution does not provide a consistent solution for individual religious discrimination (Randell-Moon 2010). The CwC report frames religious intolerance as an individual issue, caused by individual

Australia: Conflict Not Competition

45

ignorance and fanaticism rather than the state. Randell-Moon (2010: 324) states that: The basis for the Australian state’s secular neutrality is that religious belief is a private and individual choice. Individual religious freedom is therefore protected by the maintenance of a neutral and secular law. She argues that the report’s position stems from the idea that the state’s neutrality and policies of multiculturalism remove religious bias from the creation of laws. According to Randell-Moon (2010) and Maddox (2010b), assumptions of neutrality can actually mask instances of religious inequality and discrimination. They allow historical and institutional privileges of religions to be overlooked in the name of neutrality. Australia has allowed the institutional influence of specific religious (mostly Christian) values drawn from its colonial history (Chavura 2011; Randell-Moon 2010; Maddox 2010a). In illustration of the hidden Christian bias, the constitution contains reference to the ‘Almighty God’ (coa 2003: 7), both federal and state parliaments use Christian prayer to open parliament and the Christian bible is used, by default, to swear in senators. These rituals may seem symbolic but they are regarded as significant by at least some in the parliament, who have fought to maintain them (e.g. Prime Minister’s Howard and Rudd; Maddox 2005; Randell-Moon 2010). They are also often viewed as being in line with s. 116, in that they are not viewed as establishing an official state religion. Possibly due to the Christian sectarian origins of Australia’s secularism, the diffuse Christian rituals are not seen as a form of denominational establishment (Randell-Moon 2010). In a specific example, pm John Howard argued for maintaining prayer in parliament because non-establishment does not entail the removal of God from public life; a similar line of argument was followed by pm Kevin Rudd (Randell-Moon 2010). State neutrality, in the Australian case, does not give all religions equal cultural rights. The dominant religious forms at the time of the writing of the constitution have become incorporated into the government and have since been recast as neutral, preventing them from having equal standards applied to them (Randell-Moon 2010; Chavura 2011). Reflecting this, the Australian case seems to be that of a secular country that allows some forms of religious input into political and public matters. This can come up as an issue for minority religious or ethnic groups who can often feel on the outside when confronted with the Christian doctrine and rhetoric enshrined in many institutional government bodies (Randell-Moon 2010; Maddox 2010b). Australia’s political system does operate with embedded religious

46

NIXON

views and practices, and thus the state’s supposed neutrality can potentially prohibit these institutions from addressing religious inequality in the name of a supposed secular neutrality. The centrality of Christianity to public institutions does not prohibit the inclusion of non-Christian religions in policy making and parliamentary ritual, however, it does privilege Christianity as the lens through which other religions are evaluated. If prayers in parliament were challenged by non-Christian denominations, then the state could refuse to act on such a challenge in the name of secular neutrality by claiming that the state is unable to make new laws that privilege or discriminate against a particular religion, as John Howard did in the case of prayers in parliament (RandellMoon 2010). According to Randell-Moon (2010), due to inconsistency between state implementations and the lack of rights attached to the Australian constitution, Commonwealth neutrality does not offer protections for religious freedom or freedom from discrimination. Thus, a Bill of Rights or Human Rights Act adjudicated by the parliament could be subject to the Christian bias at the heart of Australia’s ‘secular neutrality’. One solution is to ban the expression of religious views in parliament and remove all institutional biases towards Christianity. However, as Maddox (2010b) argues, it is very difficult to stop politicians from expressing their deeply held religious views, which in their life are all encompassing. The recent cases of Australian Prime Ministers discussing their religion during campaigns and religiously inspired political parties like Family First and the Christian Democrat Party make this clear. Even in the us, a country with a strict separation, the private religious views of politicians clearly affect their stances and policy decisions. Maddox (2010b) suggests another solution which would also help to remove the stigma around criticising religion, so that religion(s) may be criticised openly. She suggests that in fact we need more, not less religious voices in politics. Maddox (2010b: 345) argues that: Religion [and by extension, diffuse spiritual, nonreligious and atheistic views] can play a positive role in political debate, without assuming a uniform faith on the part of voters or assuming religion’s general benignity in the public square. Her proposal would allow ‘religions’ (other than and including Christianity and Atheism) to contribute to policy discussions while also holding such religious views up to inspection by the same democratic principles that constrain other types of debate. In this way religions would also become open to public discussion and contestation. A political or organisational leader would then be obliged to explain decisions based on religion in detail and others would have the right of scrutiny and reply. This could potentially remove Christianity’s

Australia: Conflict Not Competition

47

­ ndue influence, and combined with a parliamentary governed bill of rights, u help to protect minority rights, such as those of atheists and the nonreligious. 2.6 Conclusion In summary, three factors come together to enhance the conflict that Australian atheists have experienced in past years. Australia’s traditionally shy religious culture was now allowing the public expression of religion. However, the traditionally shy culture meant that the ability to recognise the potential problems with religious arguments was lacking and the prohibition against critiquing religion and spirituality still remained. Thus the traditionally shy culture was now working against the atheists, who’s message was being viewed as being against the cultural norms of public expression that were now not being applied to religious views in the same way. Adding to this, the lack of an Australian Bill of Rights means that atheists had no legal recourse, and were restricted to the civil arena to resolve their disputes. The Australian system as it stands has been shown to offer few and inconsistent remedies for individuals who experience religious discrimination. However, the concern over placing too much power in unelected hands and the inert nature of a bill of rights means that a court adjudicated bill is undesirable for many. Some have ­suggested a parliamentary governed bill of rights; this would allow elected officials to adjudicate the bill in a more dynamic way. However, this leaves the bill open to parliamentary influence, which brings in the last factor of importance to the Australian case. Australia has a soft political secularism, which in its current form, may interact badly with a parliamentary governed bill of rights. This is demonstrated first through the colonially based institutional influence of Christianity in Australian politics. Secondly, it is demonstrated through the decisions made by parliament which continue to affect minority religious groups. In the context of this chapter, the institution of religious chaplains in schools, the resistance to ethics classes and the refusal of gac funding to the afa in 2010, are illustrative of the issues that the current system can cause. It seems that the removal of a person’s religion from public discussions is difficult to achieve, even in a country with a strict separation such as the United States. This has also been seen in Australia, where religion became more prominent in politics during the Howard era. Thus, perhaps Maddox (2010b) is right with her idea of allowing these views to be expressed, but conversely critiqued, in the public political arena. This could weaken the prohibition against critiquing religious views, remove the vestiges of Christian political bias from the Australian parliament, and make room for a more effective parliamentary governed bill of rights that serves, at least in theory, to protect all worldviews.

48

NIXON

Appendix Table 2.1

afa media releases on the bus campaigns

Topic

Date

Poster

uk Bus Campaign media coverage Bus campaign rejected in Australia Bus campaign rejected in Australia

7-Jan-09

Lee

8-Jan-09

Lee

17-Jan-09

afa Admin

26-Jan-09

Lee

Bus campaign rejected in Australia – Complaint

27-Jan-09

David Nicholls

Bus Campaign Ads at Sydney Mardi Gras Bus Campaign: Discussion of current status Bus Campaign: Office of the Anti-discrimination Commissioner has determined that Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd has a case to answer. Bus Campaign: Hunter Bible Church doing 40 days of Advertising for campaign “Jesus All About Life” Bus Campaign: afa and Metro Tasmamia strike an agreement Bus Campaign: Story on radio about Atheist Bus issues Bus Campaign: Picture of Tasmanian busses with Atheism: Celebrate Reason!

15-Mar-09 David Nicholls 16-Mar-09 Simon Gardner 26-Jun-09 David Nicholls

Bus Campaign: Cardboard Buses

Media release title

Repression of expression The Australian Atheist bus campaign in perspective. Sydney Mardi Gras

Atheists pursue second anti-discrimination case in Victoria Finally, Atheists’ slogans are on the buses! Oz Atheist buses kaput? Victory for Free Speech in Tasmania: Atheist bus-advert rejection to be conciliated

14-Jul-09

OzAtheist and we can’t get one bus advert

5-Aug-09

David Nicholls

Atheist signs to go on Tasmanian buses!

14-Aug-09

Generic Box Davo

afa on The qut Wire

4-Jan-10

Media Release: All aboard Tasmanian Buses!

49

Australia: Conflict Not Competition Table 2.1

afa media releases on the bus campaigns

Topic

Date

Poster

Bus campaign

26-Jan-10

Lee

Religion

2-Feb-10

Bus Campaign: Victorian Buses Bus Campaign: Victoria

26-Feb-10

Billboard Census Campaign: nsw

26-Feb-10 14-Jun-11

Billboard Census Campaign 23-Jun-11

Media release title

afa Bus Advertising Campaign moving ahead! Mr Black Tasmania – we may have buses, but there’s a long way to go. Lee Atheism “On the Move” in Victoria David Atheism “On the Move” Nicholls in Victoria David Atheists Refused Nicholls Advertising Space Again! David Billboards stating Nicholls ‘Mark No religion’ hit capital city skylines

References Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). 2013. 4102.0. Australian Social Trends. Nov 2013: Losing My Religion? November 20. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/ 4102.0Main+Features30Nov+2013 (accessed November 25, 2013). Asad, T. 2003. Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity. Stanford University Press: Stanford. Bouma, G. 2006. Australian Soul: Religion and Spirituality in the 21st Century. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Chavura, S. 2011. “The Secularization Thesis and the Secular State: Reflections with Special Attention to Debates in Australia.” In: J. Barbalet, A. Possamai and BS. Turner (eds.), Religion and the State: A Comparative Sociology. Anthem Press: London, 65–92. Chesterman, M. 2000. Freedom of Speech in Australian Law: A Delicate Plant. Ashgate: Dartmouth. D’Cruz, R. 2007. “Assessing the Need for a Constitutionally-Entrenched Bill of Rights in Australia.” Bond University Student Law Review. 3 (1): Article 4.

50

NIXON

Frame, T. 2009. Losing My Religion: Unbelief in Australia. UNSW Press: Sydney. Gelber, K. 2009. “Freedom of Speech and a Bill of Rights.” Australian Review of Public Affairs. University of Sydney: Sydney. Gibbs, H. 2001. “The Protection of Rights in Australia.” National Observer. 47 (13). Kirby, M. 1994. “A Bill of Rights for Australia – But Do We Need It?” (Speech). Legislative Council Chamber. Queensland. October 4. Maddox, M. 2005. God under Howard: The Rise of the Religious Right in Australian Politics. Allen & Unwin: Crows Nest. Maddox, M. 2010a. “Exploring Religion and Politics: Introduction.” Australian Religious Studies Review. 22 (3): 322–323. Maddox, M. 2010b. “An Argument for More, Not Less, Religion in Australian Politics.” Australian Religious Studies Review. 22 (3): 345–367. Nixon, AG. 2012. “Contemporary Atheism as Hyper-real Irreligion: The Enchantment of Science and Atheism in This Cosmos.” In: A. Possamai (ed.), Handbook of Hyper- real Religions. Brill: Leiden, 375–397. Possamai, A. 2008. “Australia’s ‘shy’ de-secularisation process.” In: B. Spalek and A. Imtoual (eds.), Religion, Spirituality and the Social Sciences: Challenging Marginalisation. Policy Press: Bristol, 23–36. Randell-Moon, H. 2010. “Tolerating Religious ‘Others’: Some Thoughts on Secular Neutrality and Religious Tolerance in Australia.” Australian Religious Studies Review. 22 (3): 324–344. Webber, R. Mason, M. and Singleton, A. 2005. Varieties of Spirituality amongst Australian Youth: A Qualitative Exploration. The Spirit of Generation Y Research Team. http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/ccls/sppub/050614_Spirit_of_Generation_Y _Report2.pdf. Williams, G. 1999. “The Federal Parliament and the Protection of Human Rights.” Parliament of Australia: Research Paper 20, 1998–1999. Wilson, H. 2010. “Public education in Queensland.” In: W. Bonett (ed.), The Australian Book of Atheism. Scribe Publications: Melbourne, 109–124.

chapter 3

Brazil: The Invisibility of the Brazilian Bus Campaign Paula Montero and Eduardo Dullo1 3.1 Introduction Brazil’s Catholic historical background is well known. Since its conquest of the territory in the 16th century, Portugal offered the ‘conversion of gentiles’ as a counterpart to Rome’s support to its claims to territories overseas. The Padroado was the legal and institutional arrangement upon which the structure of the colonial state was built until the 19th century. The Republican Constitution of 1889 put an end to the monarchical system and definitively separated Brazil from the Portuguese Crown. It also broke with canon law, granting autonomous jurisdiction to the state, and guaranteeing its hegemony over civil life. Despite these institutional ruptures and their resulting political conflicts, the process of State secularization that followed the organization of Republican political structures was neither characterized by anticlericalism, nor conceived as a struggle against religion. Different from experiences such as that of Mexico, where popular struggles, political elites, and a variety of intellectual strands infused profound anticlericalism in the imaginary of the nation and the constitutional framework of the state, in Brazil this movement did not become popular. It remained restricted to the Republican, positivist, and liberal political tendencies which countered the Catholic Church in their defence of the end of monarchy and Proclamation of the Republic (Souza 2005). In addition to that, their influence on and visibility in the Brazilian political culture declined rapidly in view of the fact that the Republican process of secularization of civil life and education was characterized by continuous compromise and negotiation with the Catholic Church. Moreover, disputes between the Brazilian elite and the Catholic Church did not include the advocacy of atheism. Many of the most important Republican heroes, such as Joaquim Nabuco 1 This paper would not have been possible without the valuable collaboration of Rafael Quintanilha, who helped us gather the data for this reflection. We are also grateful for the support of the São Paulo Research Foundation (fapesp); for the support of the research group “Religions and Public Controversies,” which has been conducting research on secularism in Brazil; and for the fapesp post-doctoral fellowship no. 2013/16433-3.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004328532_004

52

MONTERO AND DULLO

and Rui Barbosa, actually proposed that Brazil should embrace a ‘more rational’ Catholicism, ‘free of superstitions’ that, for liberal critics, characterized the ‘fetishistic’ Catholicism of the popular layers of society (Souza 2005:186). These peculiarities of the Brazilian political process that led to the establishment of a Republican institutional and legal regime allow us to understand why a secular civic culture did not instil in the Brazilian soul. In other words, the formation of secularism was to a large extent the result of the effort of Catholic intellectuals and thinkers to eradicate the magical and devotional religiosity that was deeply ingrained in popular experience. In fact, as we have tried to demonstrate in recent works, the making of civil society and the public sphere as distinct from the political sphere largely owe their configuration and grammar to the political mobilization and pedagogical mediation of Catholic leaders both lay and ecclesiastical concerning the promotion of the ‘liberating emancipation’ of the poorer layers of society along the 20th century (Montero 2011; Dullo 2013). The ‘Brazilian people’, as a counterpart to the sovereign state in its Republican form, was thus repeatedly narrated in terms of Christian allegories that described its ‘salvation’ around the character of the ‘poor’ and the possibility of overcoming ‘oppression’ by means of ‘pedagogies of consciousness’ capable of uprooting popular forms of belief. 3.1.1 From ‘Religious Diversity’ to ‘Religious Pluralism’ If we turn our attention to the modes in which the state’s census technologies transform the political imagination of society, it might be noted that the ‘religion’ of Brazilians was part of the project of nation building since the Empire. In 1872 the population was classed as either Catholic or Acatholic. It was not until the foundation of the Brazilian Institute of Statistics in 1938 that the counting and demographic description of the population became a regular instrument of state policy. Ever since the very first census of 1940, each one of them included in its survey a question regarding the religious profile of the Brazilian population.2 In the four subsequent decades, Catholicism represented almost the whole population (more than 90%), while people who declared to have ‘no religion’ were said to be statistically insignificant (less than 1%). Although Protestants ranked second during those fifty years, the distance from

2 The question about religion has always been an open one, except for the census of 1970, the only one to pose a closed question with only 6 categories for answers. In all censuses there is the category of people with “no religion.” The 1960 census introduced the sample procedure and displaced the question on religion to the sample questionnaire. Cf. René D. Decol (1999).

BRAZIL: THE INVISIBILITY OF THE BUS CAMPAIGN

53

Catholicism was such that it did not threaten the historical and well-grounded image of a “Catholic Brazil.”3 The 1980s might be considered as a turning point: For the first time in Brazilian history, Catholicism did not reach 90% and statistics started to draw the line of its accelerated decline. It reached its lowest mark in 2010 (64.6%) and the tendency for continuous decline is on for the next decade. The surveys also indicated that such a decrease came conjoint with the rapid growth in the number of Protestants, which increased from 5.2% of the Brazilian population to 22.2% in five decades. These numbers have ignited the academic debate about the ‘decline of Catholic hegemony’ and concomitantly stimulated public controversy over how to calculate and interpret data on religion, thus encouraging various agents to make their own estimates public. It is thus possible to see how recent are the denaturalization of Catholicism as a specific imaginary of Brazilian nationality and the perception that it represents not a way of being, but only one ‘religious choice’ among other possible ones. By shedding light on the decline of Catholicism and the rapid evangelical growth, census quantification makes it possible to articulate religious diversity in terms of the political category of ‘pluralism’ for the first time.4 It also allows us to define Catholicism as the major religion and to summon the category of ‘religious minorities’5 as a potential target for state protection and/or control. It is also interesting to note that the same statistical instrument that makes the non-Catholic population visible also makes it possible for another position to emerge – that of people with ‘no religion’. This category becomes more visible in the 1980 census, when it was higher than 1% for the first time. In the 3 Protestants were calculated at 2.6 percent in 1940; 3.4 percent in 1950; 4 percent in 1960; and 5.2 percent in 1970. Cf. gda.infoglobo. Convenções e Participações A.S. 4 Pluralism in the political field entails that one of the characteristics of a democratic system is the existence of various parties with equal right to the exercise of power. A consequence of this system is the need to create clearly defined procedures in order to guarantee the coexistence of different opinions and diverging ideas. 5 Censuses have, since the 19th century, always indicated the reduced presence of non-­ Christian religions. The reason why these groups have neither been perceived as ‘minorities’ nor acted as such has not yet been extensively investigated. The political concept of minority is very recent. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights proposed by the un in 1966 was the first international normative instrument to deal with the subject. Brazil signed this document only in 1992. Although the 1988 Constitution does not mention ‘minorities’ explicitly, granting only ‘cultural’ rights, from an objective perspective only native populations have been treated as minorities; more recently (1993), ethnic minorities (quilombos) have been assigned an agency to stand for their rights and interests: the Federal Public Ministry. Cf. Monteiro, Barreto, Olveira and Antebi 2010 (consulted on 14/04/14).

54

MONTERO AND DULLO

next decades, the number of those who declare to have ‘no religion’ has grown steadily along with the number of evangelicals and reached 8% of the population in 2010, well above non-Christian ‘religious alternatives’, which amounted to only 3% in the same year. It is thus possible to notice that the motto of “religious pluralism” – ­inscribed in the Constitution that put an end to the dictatorial period in 19886 – i­ncreasingly became a political agenda in the following decades. The context is characterized by the following: the distribution of religious diversity is extremely unequal (more than 90% are Christians); the idea of being a ­‘minority’ is used as a political flag especially by the evangélicos [Evangelical ­Protestants]; as ‘religion’ begins to be perceived as a matter of individual opinion, ‘not p ­ rofessing any religion’ becomes an available alternative in the realm of “religious choices.” 3.1.2 Impossible Atheism In this particular context, in which statements acceptable in the public sphere, such as ‘not professing any religion’ are posed by actors in terms of a ‘religious choice’, if not a Christian choice, it becomes relatively easy to understand why the atheistic position, which was officially organized into a civil association in the same year the bus campaign was launched in the United Kingdom (uk) (2008), remained invisible and, moreover, publicly indefensible until now. According to engineer Daniel Sottomaior, founder of the Brazilian Association of Atheists and Agnostics (atea), the institution joined the bus campaign with the expectation of making atheism more visible and turning it into a more distinct and better represented category among those who declare to have no religion.7 To Sottomaior, even if census takers had been careful enough not to present the interviewee with the possible answers, the very way the question is posed in the census – “what is your religion or cult?” – induces the respondent to make a binary choice: either to specify one’s religion or to declare not to have one. The possibility of a third alternative, such as “I am an atheist” would not, according to him, be present in the mind of the respondents.8 6 The 1988 Constitution fully guarantees religious freedom as well as the freedom of expression and opinion. 7 In the 2010 Census, people who declared to be atheists were for the first time grouped within a specific item in the census and made up only 4 percent of those who declared to have ‘no religion’, together with agnostics, who amounted to 0.81 percent of declarations. See FTP:// ftp.ibge.gov.br. 8 It is however necessary to look at the nuances of this statement by taking ibge’s census methodology into account. The census is carried out in two steps: first 90 percent of the population responds to a basic questionnaire that does not include the question on religious

BRAZIL: THE INVISIBILITY OF THE BUS CAMPAIGN

55

The ‘prejudiced’ way in which atheists are perceived by the majority of the population might be one of the reasons why atheism was not a possible choice. This is the position of Sottomaior, who cites a survey carried out by the Perseu Abramo Foundation in 2008/2009 in order to demonstrate that non-believing people have the highest rates of rejection by the public opinion.9 As opposed to the opprobrium directed at people who claim to be atheists, “not having a religion” is a form of self-presentation that does not face a strong rejection, since it emphasizes the detachment from religious institutions instead of the affirmation of disbelief. At least it is taken with less scandal than the declaration of “not believing in god.” An attempt at understanding this subtle distinction requires a detailed study, which would exceed the scope of this chapter. In general, “not having a religion” is a statement that refers to the fact that someone might present himself or herself as a Catholic, although not a practicing one. This is a phenomenon that was researched by scholars investigating Catholicism in Brazil who, like Thales de Azevedo (1969) and Pedro de Oliveira (1972), have described the Catholicism of elites as “social,” that is, something that is inherited and involuntary, while “popular” or folk Catholicism would be merely devotional and fragile in its relations to ecclesiastical institutions. But this also refers to the syncretic dimension of Catholicism and to how it works as a frame of reference for the making and acknowledgement of new religions (Sanchis 1995; Montero 2009). The way in which Catholicism operated as a reference matrix for the configuration of Brazilian religious diversity in all of its spectrum – from the most Africanized religions to the most recent New Age esotericisms – has set the necessary conditions for religious delimitations to remain porous, lacking definition, and for religious organizations to remain flexible and versatile. In this context, the proclaimed ‘religious diversity’ vastly studied by specialists is partly a result of the painstaking theoretical work of modelling cosmological differences and defining precise institutional and ritual delimitations to make intelligible the almost infinite spread of variants of all sorts. But the belonging. In the second step, which includes 10 percent of the universe, the interviewee is asked “what is your religion or cult?” with an open answer, without having to choose between alternatives. According to Marco Antonio Alexandre, technical coordinator of the 2010 Census, census takers have 2079 different answers to this question in the memory of their portable computers. They are the result of the 2000 Census, in which ‘atheist’ was still not a possibility. See www.paulopes.com.br, posted on 20/08/2010 and consulted on 12/04/2012. 9 Research on “sexual diversity and homophobia in Brazil” conducted by Perseu Abramo Foundation in 2008/2009. The purpose was to measure the degree of intolerance to homosexuals and transgender, yet it revealed that among the groups investigated those who “do not believe in god” are the ones with the highest levels of rejection by public opinion.

56

MONTERO AND DULLO

theoretical model thus constructed, although possibly useful for thinking of the arrangement and the repertoire of differences and their structures of thought, did not correspond to the ‘logic of practices’ in the sense Pierre Bourdieu gives to this expression, meaning the way in which individuals move in this field and to how they describe what they do. In fact, we were able to demonstrate elsewhere in 2001 that people constantly move between cult places and do not necessarily associate such transitions to a narrative of ‘religious change’ or personal ‘conversion’ (Montero and Almeida 2001). On the contrary, the range and pliability of the forms of practical appropriation of the available variations and the Catholic matrix that works as pivot for them has made it plausible and acceptable for individuals to declare to the census that they were Catholic until very recently. However, as ‘religious pluralism’ and the political struggles for tolerance and religious freedom that followed became disseminated as a way of understanding diversity, ‘religion’ has more and more become the equivalent of religious institution, and people increasingly describe their moving between cults as having ‘no religion’. This distinction is also enunciated in the religious field itself in the context of the growth of Neopentecostal Evangelical churches, which present themselves not as ‘religion’ or ‘church’, but as a ‘faith’. Thus, although this subject deserves more detailed investigation, it would not be imprecise to affirm that the census category of those ‘without religion’ grows without necessarily implying a decline in the ‘belief in God’ and in noninstitutionalized practices of all sorts which economizing analysts still class as religious. This particular context allows the understanding of why “without religion” becomes the most plausible and acceptable standard formulation to express the lack of specificity of ‘religious’ practices. At the same time, it makes it possible to understand why it is within the very field of religious struggles that atheists develop campaigns to define and display their position. Although it presents itself as against theism and every form of ‘religion’, the public campaign of the association is organized within the political scope of ‘religious pluralism’:10 on the one hand, it claims for freedom of expression and of belief, a right constitutive of religious freedom; on the other hand, it targets ‘prejudice’ by paraphrasing the defence of religious minorities in slogans borrowed from the political vocabulary of the struggles of racial and sexual minorities.11 10

11

A seminar for young people promoted by atea is presented in the program as being “part of the public policies that promote the respect to and guarantee the religious freedom and respond to situations of religious intolerance” (atea annual report, 2013). The rights of minorities have been internationally defined as ruled by the principle of equality and non-discrimination. In addition to the rights common to all people – the

BRAZIL: THE INVISIBILITY OF THE BUS CAMPAIGN

57

The particularities of the Brazilian context that place the political activism of atheism in the field of religious minorities have become very evident. For example, a television broadcaster was publicly condemned and sued after its anchor-man declared that “an atheist has no limits, and this is why there are such crimes.” As part of the verdict, the broadcaster was made to air a note of clarification to the population on “religious diversity and the freedom of consciousness and of belief in Brazil” (atea 2013). These particular characteristics of Brazilian religious history provides the background in which the atheist bus campaign was developed by the atea with different content from the ones chosen by their counterparts in the rest of the world. It is in this context that the campaign was launched in Porto Alegre in 2011, eliciting legal and social reactions. 3.2

The Campaign in Brazil

3.2.1 Origin and Objectives of the Campaign The creation of atea as a formal organization is very recent (2008), and the Brazilian bus campaign was its first attempt at gaining public visibility. Before that, its participation in the public sphere had been exclusively by means of members who individually manifested themselves as citizens who advocate the freedom of not believing and counter prejudice against atheists. According to the Association’s president, Daniel Sottomaior, the campaign in England made him understand the importance of undertaking a similar campaign in Brazil. He considered that a campaign affirming disbelief in God as a legitimate possibility would be a good way of fighting the deeply ingrained prejudice against atheists in view of the hegemonic presence of Christianity and of pervasive faith in the existence of God in all social layers in Brazil, regardless of adherence to an organized religion. atea’s official pronouncement was that the main purpose of the campaign was to fight for the recognition of non-believers as full citizens. Moreover, its goals would be the following: to attain a space in society that is proportional to our percentage [1 to 2% of the population, according to themselves], thus reducing the great prejudice against atheists; and to fight for full equality between atheists

right to life and to freedom of expression – minorities have been granted positive rights, in which the State engages directly with their protection and grants them different treatment (Monteiro, Barreto, Oliveira and Antebi 2010).

58

MONTERO AND DULLO

and theists which can only occur in a truly secular State – but this is very far from being the case. Despite the fact that atea’s initiative was inspired by the English campaign, it did not count on the collaboration or support of campaigners from other countries. The decision to do it in Brazil was entirely personal and Sottomaior considered that images and slogans should be adapted to the local context. His opinion of the English campaign was not very approving; he considered it not sufficiently aggressive and too bland. Moreover, he was not satisfied with the single slogan approach and believed that a greater number of images and slogans would have more impact, each one in its own way. In short, he wanted the bus campaign in Brazil to have a more Brazilian feel. In order to do so, atea hired an advertising agency. The organization’s members, especially its directors, came up with catchphrases to be voted by atea’s members on a restricted section of their website. Thus, it is possible to say that the slogans of the campaign in Brazil are the outcome of both the perception of atea’s directors and the choice of its more active and most engaged members. After selecting four images with their respective slogans among the various available options (see images below, figures  3.1–3.2; 3.4–3.5), the advertising agency started to contact bus companies in different Brazilian states. In order to launch the bus campaign, atea received a donation of R$ 5,000.00 from someone who chose to remain anonymous. They used the scarce resources of the newly-created association as well as a system of donations that mirrored the original British campaign. However, they did not have a similar response from the public. While in the British case contributions exceeded expectations and amounted to £ 135,000.00, in Brazil the estimated amount of donations was R$ 10,000.00, i.e. roughly £ 2,000.00. However, the efforts to raise funds and carry out the campaign were not properly rewarded. As bus companies realized what the content of the campaign was, many refused to display the images. atea had not anticipated that the campaign might be formally rejected by private businesses, even if it had already expected that prejudice against atheists could be a problem. According to Sottomaior, the refusal to show the campaign’s images was due to the country’s Christian cultural framework. According to him, the companies’ denial demonstrated that his interpretation was right. According to Sottomaior, prejudice against atheists should be compared to racism against black people and to cases of discrimination against the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (lgbt) community. Based on the aforementioned research by Perseu Abramo Foundation, he builds his case by reporting situations in which people lost their jobs or were not hired after declaring to

BRAZIL: THE INVISIBILITY OF THE BUS CAMPAIGN

59

be atheists. To these episodes of discrimination he added cases in which love and family ties were disrupted by the same reason. Finally, he commented that he had even been threatened with physical violence due to his public stance on the matter. For him, the existence of prejudice becomes visible when one notices that negative statements about atheists neither cause debate nor make people feel uncomfortable. In his words, “people are not sensitive to” such cases of discrimination. Most explanations by the bus companies were based on legal prohibition and their contentions varied according to the specific legislation of the different states. We shall see below that their contentions varied according to the specific legislation of the different states. However, not all companies presented legal justifications. Some, as was the case in the city of Florianópolis, refused to display the campaign because its images and statements were considered “offensive.” In our analysis of the content of the Brazilian campaign below, we shall try to make explicit the elements which, from the perspective of the audience, turned what atheists presented as a ‘critique of prejudice’ into an ‘offense to believers’. We shall also analyse how atea faced the paucity of means to make its campaign public. After all the work and investment, members concluded that they could not simply abandon the project; neither could they alter it in order to make it less candid. Thus they looked for alternative solutions to make it possible to carry out the campaign as it had been formulated and without having to change it. They considered leasing small planes that would fly around the waterfront in Rio de Janeiro carrying banners with the statements. However, the perception that their intended impact demanded more time for reading and reflecting on the part of the receiver of the message led the Association to give up this possibility. With this in mind, they concluded that buses would not be the best option either. They chose billboards as the most adequate format for the campaign. As it is a non-mobile support for advertisement, people would have more time to read the message and reflect on the ideas it transmitted. Upon consideration of the cost of four billboards, atea decided that its campaign should focus on the city of Porto Alegre, the capital of the southernmost Brazilian state, home to the highest percentage of atheists among Brazilian cities as well as a strong Catholic population. The city is not as large and visible as Rio de Janeiro or São Paulo, but the costs of billboards in the former and the legislation in the latter made those unfeasible choices. Thus the decision was made to strategically place the images in large avenues in Porto Alegre, in spots with a high concentration of people. One billboard was placed in front of a shopping mall and another one in front of a hospital. The money collected from donations was enough to lease them for one month.

60

MONTERO AND DULLO

3.2.2 Slogans and Images The Brazilian campaign did not replicate the original slogan used in the uk; instead it tried to produce its own images and discourse. Thus, it not only dispensed with the original slogan, but also chose to add another three slogans. Let us consider in more detail how Sottomaior and his associates conceived of the format of the Brazilian campaign, what goals they had in mind, and what communication strategies they chose in order to boost the impact of their message. According to Ariane Sherine, the journalist and comedy writer who created the 2008 campaign in the uk, her motive was to react to the continuous and frightening evangelical propaganda posted daily on public transportation in London that upset her. She was especially concerned about the forewarning that every non-believer “would spend all eternity in torment in hell,” burning in “a lake of fire” (The Guardian.com 2008). In order to counter this image of eternal damnation in hell, Sherine’s campaign posed the claim: “There’s Probably no God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life.” The slogan places the existence of God in the field of probabilities. In so doing, it leaves room for two other complementary statements. The first one cancels the threat and guilt related to the risks of apostasy (“stop worrying”) while the second one ascribes value to the joy of living in this world (“enjoy your life”). It is not our purpose to extend this analysis too far; however, it seems interesting to point out that in this case emphasis has been placed on the individual and subjective perspective of life without God, in direct contradiction to the images of fate presented in the Protestant propaganda: in the absence of God’s gaze, the individual is free to look at him/herself in search of a good life. Different from these statements circumscribed to a field more markedly theological and dogmatic, the Brazilian campaign was from the start conceived as part of a political project. Its purpose was to raise the profile of a civil organization, atea, one of the main objectives of which is to fight “prejudice against atheists.” Let us thus analyse the propositions they chose in support of this strategy. 3.2.2.1 The Slogans Under the general motto “say no to prejudice against atheists” – a recurring statement in contemporary Brazilian political activism12 – the campaign’s 12

It is difficult to define when the expression “say not to …” became popular as a motto, but it probably has anti-drug campaigns as a reference. Today it serves most of the causes that are widely accepted: “Say no to drugs,” “say no to violence,” and “say no to corruption” are expressions found everywhere.

BRAZIL: THE INVISIBILITY OF THE BUS CAMPAIGN

61

organizers launched four different slogans: “We are all atheists when it comes to other people’s gods;” “Faith provides no answers; it only hinders questions;” “If God exists anything is allowed;” and “Religion does not define character.” It is interesting to note that the statements alone are ineffective in communicating their message and do not make much sense. It is the combination between the statements and the images that makes the messages assertive and causes uneasiness in public opinion. But before analysing this conjunction of elements, let us briefly focus on the intended and actual rhetorical effects of these four statements. Taken as a group, the statements defy religion from two main angles: one concerns the issue of belief; the other concerns the issue of morality. The first statement, “We are all atheists when it comes to other people’s gods,” starts a very interesting argument: in its first assertion, it generalizes atheism as an inherent part of the human condition. It tries to displace it from its position of something aberrant or anomalous. The next part of the statement generalizes belief: We are all believers, but we believe in different things. The intended effect is to “place the theist in the atheist’s shoes so that he might see the latter as an equal,”13 but it also produces the reverse displacement at the same time. It places atheism within the domain of beliefs by qualifying it as a possible variety within the field of religious diversity. Affirming that some people “share the same disbelief regarding other people’s gods” is not the same as having no god at all. By referring to “other people’s gods,” the message conveys the acceptance of the existence of one’s own god and, thus, the desired generalizing effect eventually ascribes atheism a relative position within the general field of theism. The second statement, “Faith provides no answers; it only hinders questions,” is also composed of two contrasting statements regarding the qualification of faith. An assumed backdrop is the impossibility of collaboration between faith and science. By implicitly grounding its argument on a normative and simplifying model of science (as the one that allows for asking questions and giving answers), the statement removes religion from the field of knowledge: it cannot know because it does not ask questions; it merely believes. One could point out the manoeuvre of contrastive rhetoric here, for every scholar concerned with religion can list endless questions that have been and are currently posed by religions, as well as indicate that many of those questions eventually promoted the spirit of science itself. However, it will be explained below that the image of the Bible in the hands of a prisoner further qualifies 13

http://www.atea.org.br/index.php/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2 22&Itemid=118. Assessed on 27/04/2014.

62

MONTERO AND DULLO

this assertion and binds the general idea of belief to a particular form of believing: that of fundamentalism. If the two first questions are about the status of belief, the other two statements concern religion in its function of social control and production of moralities. The first of them, “If God exists anything is allowed,” inverts the famous passage in Dostoyevsky’s 1879 novel The Brothers Karamazov. For Dostoyevsky, the natural morality that compels us to love our fellow human beings is rooted in the belief in God and immortality, while for non-believers the moral law of nature would lead to selfishness and even crime. According to atea, this statement is repeatedly used as an accusation against atheists.14 According to the organization, evoking the passage in the slogan entails a critique not of religions, but of the ethical systems linked to them. However, the image attached to the statement deflects its meaning and makes it more radical. Continuing at the level of written language, one should also note that the statement operates a shift from the level of belief – at which Dostoyevsky’s passage is found (if one does not believe in God and in immortality) – to the level of the falsification of the idea that God exists (if God does not exist). Nevertheless, it does not refer to the pleasure of living without guilt, as the English slogan does; rather, it points to the falsification of morality through God, by means of scandal, competing for the hegemonic position of religion in defining ‘Good’. Finally, the last statement, “Religion does not define character,” presents the problem of moral behaviour. Different from the previous statements, this one does not play upon antinomies, rather making a categorical statement. Taken separately, the statement does raise great contention, but along with the images chosen to side it, it caused scandal. Studying it from a strictly conceptual standpoint, its usage of the common sense notion of ‘character’ reduces the various dimensions of personality to its moral aspects. In a more precise sense of the term, it could be said that every individual has congenital dispositions, whether good or bad, and yet, in common usage, a person might be said to lack ‘character’. By choosing common sense as its reference, the campaign aims at denaturalizing the recurring association between ‘lack of character’ and ‘lack of religion’. However, it will soon become evident that this dissociation is taken a lot further at the level of images, suggesting the inverse proposition: it is the very presence of religion that leads to lack of character. 3.2.2.2 The Images In justifying their choice of slogans for the campaign, atea representatives affirmed that they wanted not only to fight prejudice, but also to “translate 14 See https://atea.org.br/index.php/etica. Consulted on 26/04/2014.

BRAZIL: THE INVISIBILITY OF THE BUS CAMPAIGN

63

a small share of what atheists think.” They understand that as long as their thought remains unknown to the public, it will not be possible to fight prejudice. But they also acknowledge that their positions “counter religious thinking.” However, it is interesting to note that while the written propositions are relatively acceptable and might be read as divergent at the level of opinion, when images are added the messages become scandalous, regardless of the responsibles’ understanding that “none of the pieces displayed is offensive.” The performative effect of images closes the discursive field and transforms the arena of what was supposed to be a debate between different opinions into a system of accusations. The advertisements with the greatest level of repercussions, which caused the most acrimonious reaction on the part of religious people, were the ones which used the imagery of genocide: the image of the (Muslim-piloted) plane hitting the World Trade Center and the one associating Hitler with religion. The rhetorical effect of these images goes far beyond the written statements and even contradicts them. In the case of the twin towers, the creators of the campaign considered the image the most adequate one to express “the insanity that arises from a religious imperative.” In the justifications presented, they explain they have left out alternatives such as “the torture by the Holy Inquisition” or the “description of the Crusades.” Those were also choices within the imagery of genocide, but the fact is that in these cases the convincing language of photography would not be available. The photograph’s truth effect displaces the debate about the basis of morality from abstract statement to the field of actually practiced facts, thus rendering them as immoral. In so doing, it summons and reifies the representation of the religious person as an insane, genocidal terrorist; someone who commits crimes against humanity. Of course this

Figure 3.1  If God exists anything is allowed. Say no to prejudice against atheists

64

MONTERO AND DULLO

Figure 3.2 Religion does not define character. Does not believe in god. Believes in god. Say no to prejudice against atheists

type of interpellation would not remain unanswered. We will argue below how it mobilizes the difficult issue of offense. In its turn, the relatively consensual statement “religion does not define character” becomes polemical in that it is dramatically associated to Hitler’s image. This association evokes all historical compromises between the Catholic Church and European Nazi-Fascism and Latin American dictatorships.15 As a response, religious people of various denominations replaced the innocent image of Chaplin with pictures of Stalin, Che Guevara, and other communist personalities, initiating an online dispute over images and morality. In this war of images, the controversy is thus displaced from individual morality to become more general as a critique of political systems and institutions. At this level, debate actually disappears. Both arguments start from the consensus that genocide amounts to barbarism to once again perform a system of accusations: for each example of a genocide perpetrated by political systems supported by religious systems that the atheistic narrative invoked, an example of a genocide perpetrated by nonreligious political systems is conjured up by the religious narrative. It is hard to assess the effect of this drama in the building of the atheistic position. However, in a context where ‘being religious’ or ‘having a religion’ depends less and less on institutional identification,­it 15

See video at http://oferrao.atarde.uol.com.br/?p=5772 Consulted on 26/04/2014.

BRAZIL: THE INVISIBILITY OF THE BUS CAMPAIGN

65

would be possible to say that criticism of what churches do does not necessarily produce an atheistic position, although it affects what people understand as ‘religion’. The following statement, “Faith provides no answers; it only hinders questions,” comes with the image of two hands holding a Bible. What could be merely the common image of a Christian believer becomes intriguing due to the fact that the person’s hands come out through the grids of a prison cell. Many associations may arise from the visual combination of a Bible, the hands of a manual worker, and a prison. The picture summons various elements of Protestant religious experience: at the organizational level, for

Figure 3.3 Religion does not define character. Does not believe in god. Believes in god. Say no to prejudice against atheists

Figure 3.4 Faith provides no answers; it only hinders questions. Say no to prejudice against atheists

66

MONTERO AND DULLO

example, prison pastoral aid is one of the main activities of Protestant evangelism; at the level of experience, the act of reading the Bible is repeatedly evoked as something that provides meaning and helps one find peace in difficult times. Thus, inversely from what happens in the other two messages, noise results not from the image, but from the statement that is added to it. The prisoner who looks like he is searching in the Bible for an answer to his condition is contradicted: This is not where he shall find ‘Truth’. From the perspective of its creators, this piece is a direct criticism of religious thought. According to them, the image suggests that “faith is a prison.”16 However, it is interesting to notice that this image of hands projecting out of the grids of a run-down prison is very uneventful in the Brazilian imagination, since it is daily conveyed by the news of violence and revolt inside prisons. The image of a Bible in the hands of a poor suffering human being fits well the general idea of what an individual could do to cope with such conditions. In this context, the public’s interpretation of the image would hardly be one that considers the Bible, and not the prison itself, to be this person’s true prison. Despite the creators of the campaign’s affirmation that this advertisement opposes the “prejudice that emanates from faith,” the rhetorical effect conveyed is one of cultured disqualification of religious thought as lacking in sense and alienating.17 Finally, the idea that faith only hinders questions is more appealing for what it says rather than for the image it conveys.

Figure 3.5  We are all atheists when it comes to other people’s gods. Say no to prejudice against atheists. Hindu myth. Egyptian myth. Palestinian myth 16 17

http://www.atea.org.br/index.php/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2 22&Itemid=118. Consulted on 27/04/2014. In her article “Representing Fundamentalism,” Susan Harding (1991) draws attention to the pervasive modernist framing within which cultured thought represents fundamentalism as ‘backward’, ‘literal’, ‘intolerant’, ‘uncultured’, etc.

BRAZIL: THE INVISIBILITY OF THE BUS CAMPAIGN

67

What draws one’s attention in observing the images chosen is the subtitles labelling each image as a “myth” categorized not by the name of a divinity, but by its place of origin: ‘Hindu myth’ is the figure of Vishnu, the god in charge of supporting the universe; ‘Egyptian myth’ describes the figure of Horus, considered to be the founder of Egyptian civilization; and ‘Palestinian myth’ labels the image of Jesus. This representation of the divinities refers to a dense and illustrated theological/historical/archaeological debate on the historicity of Biblical texts and the vast bibliography that has been produced on the topic. The images of Jesus and Horus used in the campaign are broadly disseminated in networks of atheists as well as of other movements that champion the use of scientific methods to interpret religions. The same images are presented side by side in the book Jesus 3000 años antes de Cristo? Jesús y el Antiguo Egipto [Jesus 3000 Years Before Christ? Jesus and Ancient Egypt], by theologian Llogari Pujol and his wife, historian Claude Brigitte Carcenac, published by Grijalbo in 2003. In their comparison of images from the Bible and Ancient Egypt, the authors suggest that the Evangelists were inspired by Egyptian folk tales then very popular in Palestine in creating the life of Jesus and the essence of this mythical character. Although they were neither the first nor the only to make this kind of comparison, this book spread in atheistic circles and gave way to great controversy between theists and atheists, both sides displaying remarkable erudition in the attempt to demonstrate the historical truth or fallacy of Biblical passages.18 ‘Faith’ in the literal truth of Biblical facts is a frequent cliché in accusations of religious ‘fundamentalism’ by nonreligious people.19 Reference to this debate, which in Brazil is restricted to a small number of aficionados, is evidently not legible to the greater public. By using a critical repertoire that is well-known in atheistic networks and circles in order to oppose a literal 18

19

http://www.taringa.net/posts/videos/6551818/Video-Llogari-Pujol-jesus-nacio-3000 -anos-antes-de-c.html (Consultado 27/04/2014). The Zeitgeist Movement also launched three well-known videos criticizing religions. In one of them – Zeitgeist, The Movie, of 2007 – the filmmakers tried to demonstrate, with much erudition and details, that the fact that big religions always repeat the same structure of ideas and general characteristics (12 disciples, miracles, crucifixes, death and resurrection, etc.) can be explained by the fact that Biblical metaphors express the astronomical and astrological knowledge of ancient peoples. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3Ya5qiiW6k (consulted on 01/05/2014). Susan Harding tries to demonstrate how this label, at first taken up by Baptists and Presbyterians as an honorary title, increasingly gained unpleasant and critical connotations in the course of religious and legislative debate around the literal reading of the book of Genesis with the purpose of prohibiting the teaching of evolutionism at public schools in the 1920s (1991: 378).

68

MONTERO AND DULLO

reading of the Bible, the campaign’s attempt at transforming gods into historically constructed mythical characters tends to remain too cryptographic to attain its intended effect. In the absence of the mentioned referent, there tends to prevail a reading of this sequence of ‘gods’ as regarding religious diversity. 3.3 Responses 3.3.1 Legal Responses The purpose of this section is to discuss the legal justifications presented by bus companies in refusing to display the campaign. Moreover, we shall discuss how atea prizes “legal activism,” that is, how it considers the judiciary to be the best way to access the public sphere and the power of the state, rather than the executive or the legislative. In three large cities the campaign was prohibited on legal grounds: São Paulo, Salvador, and Porto Alegre. Only in Florianópolis the rejection was not based on a legal reason, but rather justified by the “offensive” content. As was mentioned in the previous sections, the choice of cities was due to their potential for visibility and impact, since those are some of the largest cities in the country. In the case of São Paulo, when atea tried to advertise in the metropolitan train system the following legislation was presented in response: Chapter 6, item 20: I – the display of advertising which is contrary to the legislation in force, accepted morality and proper conduct or having religious or political and partisan subjects, which might affect the operational system of the subway or the image of the Metro Company and/or which might encourage improper behaviour. In the case of Salvador, the company claimed that the campaign violated the municipal legislation prohibiting advertisement that “favours or stimulates any sort of racial, sexual, social or religious offense or discrimination.” Thus, the campaign supposedly violated municipal decree number 12,642 of April 28, 2000. Art.15 – The posting of any Medium or the display of any advertising is prohibited, whatever its purpose, form, or composition, in the following cases: ii. whenever it favours or stimulates any sort of racial, sexual, social or religious offense or discrimination;

BRAZIL: THE INVISIBILITY OF THE BUS CAMPAIGN

69

iii. whenever it contains elements that may induce to criminal or legal activities, the use of drugs or violence, or might favour, praise, or stimulate such practices; iv. whenever it is considered an attack to public morality and proper conduct in language or allegory. (emphasis added) In Porto Alegre, the initiative was vetoed by government authorities, which presented a municipal law prohibiting “advertising that fosters any kind of social, racial, and creed discrimination.” The Public Transportation Agency claimed that the display of the pieces would violate municipal decree 11,460 of 1996 stating in its Art. 1: § 2 It is prohibited to display advertising that may foster any type of social, racial, and creed discrimination; illegal activity; and violence, or that markets products that demonstrably cause pollution or damage health and the environment, such as cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, and motels.20 (emphasis added) Thus, although the campaign was not thought up as religious, but rather as nonreligious (or even as anti-religious), the legislation that it brings about is the one concerning any affirmation or image that intends to make use of religion in its broadest sense. Thus, it is possible to say that it lies within the field of debate regarding what is religion, and that its definition is always made with what is seen as religious as a reference. On the other hand, it is possible to argue that the presentation of such legislation as a justification is a sign of ambiguity or even of a double judgment. This is due to the fact that the same piece of legislation governs religious discrimination and offense and condemns messages that are contrary to accepted morality and proper conduct. One notices how the double interpretation of atea messages (regarding faith/religion plus morality) is to be found in the legislation itself. By questioning these two fields and the connection between them, the Brazilian campaign is therefore disputing meanings established within the religious field. Moreover, the affirmation that the images convey a moral offense to socially established customs gave ground for atea to dispute such legal justifications as a continuation of the prejudice against non-believers, for the statement of their position offends these hegemonic customs. Based on this interpretation,

20

In Brazil, motel and hotel are not usually intended to fulfil the same goals, the first one being used to have sex in a city that you already have another place to stay.

70

MONTERO AND DULLO

atea considered suing the companies. Its justification was that a secular state is one that grants freedom of expression also to non-believers. Curiously, atea’s main strategy of political action is through the judiciary. They base their arguments on the same articles used to prohibit the bus campaign as well as on protections guaranteed in the Brazilian Constitution. On paragraph 5, the Constitution prohibits any form of discrimination – including religious – and secures the freedom of believing and not believing. The members of the atea make an effort at suing everyone who does not comply with this principle. The legal actions actually set forth include a variety of situations: subjects range from television entertainers to politicians and even the state, which atea accuses of not observing its own legislation. In most cases atheism was mentioned as a source of harm and/or unhappiness. In the cases in which the state is the defendant, atheists challenge small towns’ laws that counter the hierarchically superior Constitution. The first large legal case won by atea was against a famous television entertainer. José Luiz Datena’s tv program is very well-known for its popular and sensationalist format, presenting situations of crime and violence. On one occasion, as he commented on a recent case of violence, he affirmed that it happened because the people who committed it “did not have God in their hearts.” Thus, he associated disbelief in God with acts of cruelty against other citizens. Another case also associates violence and atheism: atea’s lawsuit against Frei Betto, an important left-wing Catholic once imprisoned during the dictatorship. According to atea, he affirmed that torturers in those days were militant atheists. As a result of these actions, atea was granted the “right to respond” in the second case and the right to a public apology in the first case. After these victories, the association gained confidence to go on practicing its legal activism. Sottomaior’s perception is that advocating in the legislative and executive branches is inefficient, for the pressure of political interests supplants observance of the legislation. To him, only the judiciary is suited to act with neutrality and make discrimination be perceived as such. As mentioned above, in his perception this is due to the fact that people are not sensitive to prejudice against atheists. However, atea’s legal activism is also carried out in the name of the secularism of the state. Sottomaior mentions several cases in which this principle is neglected, such as in the small town of Apucarana (in the state of Paraná, in the south of Brazil), where a law was passed to compel all students in public schools to pray the Lord’s Prayer before classes. In the same fashion, schools in different parts of the country were targeted in atea’s lawsuits accusing the

BRAZIL: THE INVISIBILITY OF THE BUS CAMPAIGN

71

practice of “religious bullying” against children who do not believe in God. For atea, the inscription “God be praised” in Brazilian paper currency is an outrage to non-believers and the same is true about the display of religious symbols in public places, the removal of which has been repeatedly requested in court by members of the organization. In all such cases, their claim is a defence of the secularism of the state and the freedom not to believe. In Sottomaior’s understanding, the removal of religious symbols from public buildings is a mandatory step towards Brazil becoming a country for all, not only for believers. In this view, religion shall be restricted to the private realm, and not displayed and visible – at least not in state-related buildings and areas. Thus, secularism is connected to the notion of religious freedom and the freedom of choice, as there should not be any kind of stimulus by the state for its citizens to adopt any religion. According to this view, everyone is free to believe and not to believe and this would promote a decrease in prejudice against atheists. Although at times Sottomaior defines secularism as “full, complete, and absolute neutrality on the part of the State,” he also affirms that only the lgbt movement did understand “the true meaning of secularism.” The proximity between atheists and lgbt in the understanding of secularism might be better understood in light of their alliance in the dispute against religious people’s positions, considered to be ‘conservative’, and their combat of religious presence in the public sphere and political office. The debate focuses on the prohibition of abortion, same-sex marriage, and scientific research involving stem cells. However, once the alliance with sexual minorities is set, the issue of secularism as state neutrality is complicated. It is known that the problem of minorities sets in motion the idea of positive rights, in which the state is directly engaged in policies that grant a particular collectivity different treatment. In our interview with atea’s president, the above-mentioned positions were described by him as negative and as problems emerging from religion. When asked whether “the problem is that religion intervenes too much in people’s life,” Sottomaior answered: This is a very serious problem. But I am not ashamed of pinpointing what I think are the harms they do to an individual’s life, either. Researcher: In their private life. Sottomaior: Yes. Regardless of the freedom one has to do so. People are free to abuse nicotine and alcohol, for example, and many other substances – well, not that free, but they do so anyway –, and this is not a reason for the ministry of health, for every local secretary of health, to acknowledge the harm in it and to invest all possible resources in awareness campaigns, that is, to change culture in order to prevent the use of

72

MONTERO AND DULLO

these substances, for it acknowledges this as a harm to the individual and the society. I have the exact same position regarding religion. It is probably not a good idea to prohibit it, as previous experiences already demonstrate; there are such experiences concerning both religion and substance abuse. But this is not enough reason for me to ignore the harms such things cause to others and to the individual. These statements indicate that the notion of ‘religion’, usually represented as a source of morality, is seen by him as harmful. This perception sheds a new light on the slogan and image of Hitler used in the campaign. Religion can do harm not only to discriminated non-believers, but also to believers themselves, just like alcohol or cigarette addicts are free to use substances that are harmful to their lives. Moreover, the position of atea’s president has changed in comparison to his previous statement on secularism as neutrality and absolute separation between state and religion. If the Ministry of Health advertises about the harms certain substances cause to citizens, who are nonetheless free to consume them, it might be the case for the state to clarify the public about the harm religion may cause to believers. In this sense, the state would not keep its distance from religion, but rather act as a regulating agent that engages in positions that are contrary to religion. As our interview went on, we asked whether he thought the state would do so. His answer was negative, as he stated that the state “is dominated by theists.” For this one more reason our interviewee insisted in the value of legal activism as the most efficient way for activist atheism. 3.3.2 Social Responses Although the billboards displayed in Porto Alegre were acknowledged by the social networks directly concerned with the subject of atheism, the campaign did not reach the Brazilian media and its content did not affect the greater public. Large newspapers limited themselves to publishing small information notes describing the campaign and its goals. For the most part there was no profound background analysis on the issue of atheism in Brazil and the accounts were restricted to Daniel Sottomaior’s positions regarding prejudice against atheists. From a general perspective, it is possible to say that the campaign generated controversy only in the intellectual and religious milieu associated with Catholicism. In fact, it is worth noting the absolute silence of actors from other religious institutions, including Protestant denominations and Islamic groups that might have felt accused of fanaticism. There was no public reaction from official representatives of those segments. Academia did not manifest itself either. Apart from a couple of op-ed authors, such as Hélio Schwartsman,

BRAZIL: THE INVISIBILITY OF THE BUS CAMPAIGN

73

a columnist for the newspaper Folha de São Paulo, who clearly defended atea’s campaign, journalists, researchers, and jurists did not issue any opinion on the event. Apparently, these sectors either were not informed or did not feel interpellated by the statements displayed on the billboards. It would be necessary to research further to assess the meaning of their abstention. Whatever the reasons for the negligible impact of the movement might be, it is possible to note from the way the press and blogs dealt with the subject that the debate mobilized only well-established people from the Catholic system. Although the controversy concerning the campaign did not involve the greater public, for the purposes of this analysis it is worth looking at the terms in which it was posed, at least by two of the most important characters to publicly react to it: the well-known Catholic jurist and Opus Dei leader in Brazil, Ives Gandra Martins,21 and cardinal archbishop of São Paulo Dom Odilo Pedro Scherer.22 In an interview to the site of the Catholic Charismatic movement Canção Nova (New Song) in December 2010, Gandra Martins claims that the Brazilian campaign violates article 3 of the Constitution because “it not only lies […] but discriminates against people who believe in God.” He considered the messages to be “aggressive and prejudiced” because they aim not only to “defend the right to be an atheist,” but to “attack religion itself.” It becomes clear that both sides of the debate rely on the political concept of ‘minority’ and build their position as victims of acts of discrimination committed by the opponent: some for being atheists and some for being religious. Thus, one might conclude that the way in which divergences are outlined is constrained by the principles of ‘freedom of expression’ and ‘tolerance for difference’, accepted by both parties as legitimate principles of the Rule of Law. “A truly democratic society is free of prejudice, and these campaigns are prejudiced,” affirms Ives Gandra. On the other side of the issue, Sottomaior, in his response to this interview, affirmed that “making religious people feel attacked by atheists is an efficient strategy by the lawyers of the Roman Curia. Fear prevents individuals from approaching free thought.”23 As Caroline Eliacheff and Daniel Soulez Larivière (2007:14) observed, there is a strong connection between democracy and victimization. Compassion for the victims has become “the first quality of a political being, both in the left and in the right wing […].” Moreover, “the rights granted to victims have the purpose of achieving equality and especially the belonging to a common humanity.” Thus, what is at stake in the debate between Gandra and Sottomaior is 21 22 23

Link to the audio file: http://podcast.cancaonova.com/programa.php?id=2774 16/12/2010. Link to the audio file: http://podcast.cancaonova.com/programa.php?id=2769 16/12/2010. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/opiniao/13603-o-fundamentalismo-de-cada-dia.shtml.

74

MONTERO AND DULLO

a dispute for the position of the victim. For Gandra, atheists have always been acknowledged as “full and worthy citizens,” at least by himself, who claims to have many friends who are atheists. But the campaign is prejudiced because it intends to “demoralize believers.” “In the democratic Rule of Law nothing is as bad as the attempt at imposing one’s thought, especially when it is the thinking of a minority discriminating others who think differently,” concludes Gandra. Sottomaior tries to invert the positions by affirming “our war is waged against ideas, not against people.” Analysis of the whole set of the arguments presented in the debate reveals that the dispute does not really escape the field of religious dispute, notwithstanding its language being that of legality. Gandra affirms that atheists are “profoundly religious in their denial of the existence of God, their religion is the denial of God.” According to him, this fundamentalist minority would be trying to impose its opinion (that is, its creed) in an authoritarian fashion, thus distorting the thought of the majority who do not think as they do. S­ ottomaior, on his side, affirms that he is not waging a war against Christians, but against religious ideas. And he adds that “acknowledging fundamentalism as a plague is the same as implying that religion is only acceptable when it is not taken really seriously, an idea accepted by hundreds of millions on ‘non-observant Catholics’ and religious people who prefer to keep all sorts of churches and dogmas at a distance.” It is interesting to note how Sottomaior’s statement ends up endorsing Gandra’s accusation of intolerance. If religion is not to be taken seriously, it is impossible to argue that it should be respected. In his ­“criticism of religious ideas,” Sottomaior cannot avoid the trap of his own twofold religious position: either he places himself at the theological level and falsifies the ‘lies’ disseminated by religious ideas or he places himself in the field of religious dispute and falsifies the ‘truth’ of other people’s gods. Dom Odilo Scherer emphasized the offensive dimension of the campaign in his interview to the Canção Nova Charismatic site. The world-famous images of horror of the airplane that hit the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, and of Adolf Hitler in military uniform, put in direct association with religion, were considered especially insulting by Catholics. It is worth noting that Dom Odilo Scherer’s first observation in the interview was to indicate how artificial the campaign was: “I would first say that the issue is being artificially posed in Brazil; it raises a problem that does not exist,” he affirms. One could start by asking what is this “inexistent problem” in Brazil as suggested by the archbishop: terrorism, genocide, or atheism itself? It becomes clear in the sequence of the interview that he refers specifically to the fact that there has never been ‘persecution of atheists’ in Brazil: “Firstly, there is no situation of discrimination against or persecution of atheists and

BRAZIL: THE INVISIBILITY OF THE BUS CAMPAIGN

75

agnostics. Atheists and agnostics have always existed and do exist today, and they have not been denied freedom of expression […],” the archbishop affirms. In his reaction, the interviewee thus refutes the very premise upon which the campaign was created – “say no to prejudice against atheists” – and denies it any historical grounding, at least in the Brazilian case: [the] problem itself is not felt [here], this [is] something that has been imported from elsewhere, from some group of atheist activists in Europe, of whom people have heard about. This presentation of the situation reveals an interesting aspect of the invisibility of atheism in Brazil: it is not simply about numbers, but mostly about the absence of a perception of conflict that would make atheists clearly objects of some sort of persecution and/or aggression. Different from the homosexual and anti-racist movements with which they seek political alliances, atheism is perceived as an individual and intimate ‘choice’, a ‘conviction’ to be respected. The general principle of respect for different convictions is accepted by all of the disputing positions in the debate: “The only thing that is necessary is to respect others, so that my way of expressing my thought is not aggressive towards the other person’s position and convictions,” says the cardinal. Thus, even if atheists are a ‘minority’ in numbers, the frailty of the facts based on which atheism tries to picture itself as a socially persecuted minority is not convincing. The debate thus loses its objective, replaced in the public imagination with the arbitrariness of atheistic accusations against religions, as well as their offensive character. The campaign, presented as a ‘political struggle’, is taken by its opponents as mere ‘defiance’, incitement of conflict and, consequently, a confrontation that deserves no answer. The cardinal concludes: “The best way for Christians and faithful people to face this which presents itself as a sort of defiance is by strengthening their own faith.” In these conditions, in which the object of political struggle is not legitimately construed and ‘faith’ becomes the answer to ‘defiance’, public debate is disqualified and there are no conditions for it to be instituted as such. It all remains constrained to a field of mutual accusations in the small circle of those who feel they have been insulted. 3.4

Final Considerations

When atea launched the bus campaign in Brazil, its purpose was to position itself publicly as a political minority by affirming that atheists are a target of prejudice. However, the unexpected result was its being acknowledged as a

76

MONTERO AND DULLO

religious minority, accused of being fundamentalist in its positions and as intolerant and offensive as the religious positions it intended to fight against. In this chapter we have tried to build the argument that the social position from which the atea intended to manifest itself publicly is not available in the present social and historical context of Brazilian secularism. We considered three constraints that have framed atheism as a religious position: the first one is the enduring hegemonic presence of the Catholic church in public life and the important role it has had on the building of civil society throughout the 20th century; the second is the specific fashion in which the right to religious freedom was legally defined in Brazil; and the third is the atheist movement’s claim for a minority position, something that would generally be justified only when a stigmatizing social condition is collectively assigned to a group regardless of its conscious choices. These last two constraints become more evident in the analysis when it is observed that both religious people’s and atheists’ positions in the debate are based on the same legal and political language, and thus confront each other as two mirrors facing one another. We now turn to a detailed discussion of these three aspects. As was explained in the beginning of this chapter, the Brazilian civil sphere was marked by strong Catholic presence until the 1980s. Since then there has been progressive decrease in the Catholic population and an increase in the number of people who identify as non-Catholic Christians. There has also been a significant increase in the number of people who declare to have ‘no religion’. However, as shown above, ‘not having a religion’ is not necessarily synonymous with being an ‘atheist’. It is necessary to distinguish ‘no religion’ from nonreligious for the first term is used for all believers who do not have any church affiliation. Thus, it is only possible to estimate the number of nonreligious people and it is not clear what their proportion is in comparison to other positions. Considering the great religious mobility in Brazil, it is possible that the majority of the 8 percent who declare having no religion do believe in God. Another aspect of this constraint is the importance of Catholicism in the making of civil society in Brazil. Especially from the beginning of the 1960s to the end of the 1980s, the Catholic Church had a strong left-wing position and opposed the dictatorial regime imposed by the military. The Church was involved in the organization of social movements and the struggles for freedom and human rights. Its position as a champion of democracy in a secular state results from that. Moreover, as the decline of Catholic hegemony is a recent phenomenon, the social logic based on which one presents oneself as a religious ‘minority’ has not yet been fully established. These difficulties are felt in atea’s attempts at positioning itself as a political minority, which are not very plausible in the context.

BRAZIL: THE INVISIBILITY OF THE BUS CAMPAIGN

77

As the campaign sought to oppose religion along the two axis circumscribed by the analysis above – the axis of belief and morality – it was placed in the field of disputes, the bounds of which have been drawn by the Catholic religion and legitimated by the state. In this case, it is worth underscoring that it is the legal hold that supports the secularism of the Brazilian state, guarantees religious freedom, and determines that religions are not to be the target of offense. The option for not believing is also guaranteed by the same law, thus encompassing the position of atheists as a variation of religious freedom. The justification presented by the local legislation to deny the advertising of the campaign is the same that prohibits racial, sexual, and religious discrimination and defends accepted morality and ‘proper conduct’. Atheists’ attempt to affirm themselves as a political minority, like the black and homosexual movements, does not find legal confirmation. This stimulates the interpretation of the minority position of atheists as religious. Not believing in the existence of God is perceived as a choice within the field of religious possibilities. Thus, the position intended by atheists, that would allow them to publicly express their criticism of religion from outside the religious field, is not historically possible in the present social and legal context in Brazil. Such historical/legal impossibility is reinforced by the fact that ‘being an atheist’ is perceived as an individual ‘religious choice’ made possible by legal protection, and not a ‘natural’ legacy, such as skin colour or sexual orientation. The common understanding that people are free to choose their own ‘faith’ one of the most well-accepted principles of the secular state, is repeatedly raised in order to define ‘atheism’ as a ‘religious’ possibility. Finally, atea’s very political strategy reinforces the ‘religious’ interpretation of its actions. Our argument here is that atheists and religious people in Brazil mirror each other in the way they position themselves and act in the public sphere. This is visible at two levels: in the design of the campaign and in its legal and social responses. When the campaign’s authors created it, one of their declared purposes was to put belief in perspective. And so they stated that “we are all atheists when it comes to other people’s Gods.” However, this affirmation admits the underlying assumption of the existence of some God, at least the one which is true for someone. To this is to be added the image of religion as a source of harm and tragedy, as in the case of the ads depicting an airplane that hit the World Trade Center towers, and of the Bible in the hands of a prisoner. These images position the debate once again in the field of intra-religious doctrinal dispute by indicating that atheists do not believe in other people’s beliefs, but have a truer faith. These statements portray them as ‘atheists’ only when it regards the beliefs of others, since they seem incapable of allowing for doubt about their

78

MONTERO AND DULLO

own faith. The analysis of the campaign’s slogans and images demonstrates that atea’s dispute, in which it certainly had a weaker position, concerned two debates in which religions have long dwelled and reflected upon: the status of belief and religion as a source of morality. As far as legal responses are concerned, it is possible to observe that both atea’s president, Daniel Sottomaior, and jurist Yves Gandra make use of the same legal and political language. Both accept the terms of the debate: religious freedom, the notion of minority, and the existence of victims, but they compete for the public position of being offended and accuse the other of being a fundamentalist. For Sottomaior, atheists are the ones who suffer prejudice for not believing in God and are a target of religious fundamentalism. In this view, their status is similar to that of political minorities such as blacks and homosexuals. For Gandra, they are offenders that promote religious intolerance and threaten social peace. They are also trying to impose the perspective of a minority upon society, something very close to authoritarian characteristics that are contrary to a democratic regime. The only political minority status atea was assigned in the debate was that of an authoritarian minority, and not a victimized collectivity. Apart from the political and legal constraints that lent the campaign a meaning unforeseen by its creators, we would like to suggest that its little visibility is also explained by the low density and lack of scientific, intellectual, and media sophistication of the debate in Brazil. In fact, what might be surmised from the observation of the debate on atheism at the international level is that the propositions defended reference a vast field of knowledge and erudition accumulated along various decades of reflection, teaching, and public debate among prestigious intellectuals both in the field of sciences and in the field of religions. In the Brazilian case, limited access of the population to the university, relatively ill-distributed scientific culture, and the complete absence of religious studies as an academic discipline at public universities are some of the historical factors that limit the possibilities for extending this debate to the wider set of cultured layers of society. It is thus kept restricted to the small circle of those who are most directly interested in the problem. In the lack of a vaster scientific, philosophical, literary, and theological repertoire, the actors involved – such as atea – end up choosing the political field of discrimination against minorities as the main arena of debate. Although Sottomaior’s campaign was inspired by issues that are present in the international debate, the issue of atheism as a minority and an offense assumed very particular configurations in the Brazilian case. The much watched video “The Four Horsemen of New Atheism”24 might be taken as an example 24

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrTYmOSgYzY.

BRAZIL: THE INVISIBILITY OF THE BUS CAMPAIGN

79

of the exchange of opinions between four known atheist intellectuals  – Christopher Hitchens, an English journalist and literary critic; Richard ­ Dawkins, a British biologist and writer; Sam Harris, an American philosopher and neuroscientist; and Daniel Dennett, a philosopher and one of the most widely known American atheists – in which the viewer can see that presenting oneself as a minority is, for these thinkers, to make the same mistake made by religious people who take criticism as a personal offense. For them atheism is an intellectual attitude aimed at criticizing religious ideas, and not a “belief to be protected.” They defend their legitimate right to publicly disagree with and criticize religious ideas without it being interpreted as offensive. In the video Dennett notes how hard it is to engage in debate in this field without offense coming up as an element in the game. For him, religious people resort to the artifice of “hurt feelings” to make disagreement impossible. Taking as reference the field of scientific debate, in which the falsification of a theory is not interpreted as a personal offense, his colleague Sam Harris concludes that it is impossible to debate with religious people: They are capable of demonstrating the implausibility of other people’s beliefs, but are unable to use arguments to defend their own opinion. In the Brazilian case, the issue of offense does not refer to the scientific ethos of the falsification of arguments, but rather to the political/moral ethos of the ‘recognition’ of difference. Because there are no publicly known academic participants in this debate, the modus operandi of scientific argumentation was not followed. In this sense, Brazilian atheism did not have the necessary cultural capital available to present itself as an “intellectual attitude to expose the frailty of religious arguments.” In the lack of such a possibility, the debate was displaced to the field of political criticism of authoritarianism: regardless of how reasonable they may be, ideas must not be persecuted nor imposed. It is possible to say that the Anglo-American critique that labeled religious ideas as fundamentalist would be seen, in Brazil, as authoritarian. As the Catholic reactions to the campaign suggest, it seems to be difficult for many people in Brazil to think about a world in which religion would be eradicated because that notion summons political imagery of dictatorships in the communist world. This is, however, a very outdated image. It is possible to imagine various other ways of living without religion, and the new generations have already started to do so. References Adriana Carneiro Monteiro, Gley Porto Barreto, Isabela Lima de Oliveira e Smadar Antebi. 2010. Minorias Étnicas, Linguísticas e Religiosas. s.l.: DHnet-Direitos Humanos. dhnet.orgbr/dados/cursos/dh/br/pb/dhparaiba/5/minorias.html.

80

MONTERO AND DULLO

Almeida, Paula Montero e Ronaldo de. 2001. Transito Religioso no Brasil. São Paulo em Perspectiva. n. 03, vol. 15. Decol, René D. 1999. Mudanças Religiosas no Brasil: uma visão demográfica. Revista Brasileira de Estudos Populacionais. n.16, Vol. 1/2. Dullo, Carlos Eduardo Valente. 2013. A produção de subjetividades democráticas e a Formação do secular no Brasil a partir da pedagogia de Paulo Freire. Rio de Janeiro: doctoral dissertation. UFRJ. Foucault, Michel. 2008. Segurança, Território, População. São Paulo: Martins Fontes. Giumbelli, Emerson. 2006. Minorias religiosas In: Faustino Teixeira e Renata Menezes (org.). As Religiões no Brasil.Continuidades e Rupturas. Petrópolis: Vozes. Harding, Susan. 1991. Representing Fundamentalism: the problem of the repugnant cultural other. Social Research. vol. 58, n.2. Larivière, Caroline Eliacheff e Daniel Solez. 2007. Le Temps des Victimes. Paris: Editions Albin Michel. Montero, Paula. 2009. Secularização e Espaço Público a reinvenção do pluralismo religioso no Brasil. Etnográfica. Vol. 13, n.1. Montero, Paula. 2011. O campo religioso, secularismo e a esfera pública no Brasil. Boletim CEDES. PUC-RJ. Oliveira, Pedro A.R de. 1972. Religiosidade Popular na América Latina. Revista Eclesiástica Brasileira. fasc. 126, Vol. n.32. Oliveira, Thales de. 1969. Catolicismo no Brasil? Revista Vozes. Vol. n.2, February. Sanchis, Pierre. 1995. As tramas sincréticas da história. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais. vol.28. Souza, Ricardo Luiz de. 2005. O anticlericalismo na cultura brasileira. Revista de Ciências Humanas. Florianópolis, Vol. n.37.

chapter 4

Canada: Insights Derived from the Atheist Bus Campaign on the Status of Atheism in Canada’s Multicultural Mosaic Steven Tomlins and Spencer Culham Bullivant While certainly imperfect, since Canada’s founding debates there has been political and legal will toward fostering the integration of religious difference rather than assimilation. We see this in the historic formation of Canada where the largely Catholic French colony and a Protestant English colony were united by confederation while managing to maintain their individual and historically derived identities,1 as well as more recently through multicultural policy, Charter rights, and legal judgments. According to scholar Bruce Ryder: Our Constitution permits the state to play a role in fostering a positive religious pluralism as long as it does so in an even-handed manner. To put it differently, the “baseline” for measuring state neutrality in C ­ anada is the position of equal religious citizenship. Measures taken to promote the ­capacity of religious believers to fully and equally participate in ­Canadian society are consistent with state neutrality as long as they are extended in an even-handed manner to all adherents of religious or conscientious belief systems.2 While this speaks to official policy, Ryder is careful to acknowledge that “[d]espite the clarity with which the model of equal religious citizenship has

1 See Janet Aizenstat, Paul Romney, Ian Gentles, and William D. Gairdner, Canada’s Founding Debates, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003). For example, politician John Rose, speaking in the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada on February 22, 1865, said: “There has been, ever since the time of union … a cordial understanding and friendly feeling between the two nationalities which has produced the happiest results. Belonging to different races and professing a different faith, we live near each; we come in contact and mix with each other, and we respect each other; we do not trench upon the rights of each other; we have not had those party and religious differences which two races, speaking different languages and holding different religious beliefs, might be supposed to have had (342). 2 Bruce Ryder, “The Canadian Conception of Equal Religious Citizenship,” in Richard Moon, Law and Religious Pluralism in Canada, (Toronto: ubc Press, 2008), 94–95.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004328532_005

82

TOMLINS AND CULHAM BULLIVANT

been developed in Canadian human rights law, it is a relatively new development that remains fragile and contested.”3 Atheists4 have recently ­challenged the current model of ‘equal religious citizenship’ by instituting a series of ad campaigns on the side of city buses and in transit stations in populous ­Canadian cities. These ads, which we refer to as the ‘atheist bus campaign’, challenged religious beliefs and shed light on the acceptability of irreligious beliefs in public spaces. The most common slogan associated with the campaign was, “There’s Probably no God, Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy your Life.” Legal proceedings brought against the ads in some cities, including Canada’s national capital, call into question the role that atheism plays in the Canadian conception of multiculturalism and, by extension, religious diversity. In turn, the response to these ads – from media, interest groups, as well as the general public – provides ­further discourse shedding some light on the Canadian conception of multiculturalism regarding its inclusion or exclusion of atheism. Through a mapping and examination of the Canadian manifestation of the atheist bus campaign, this paper argues that the campaign was an expression of atheists’ desire to be recognized as citizens on par with their religious counterparts. The responses to the campaign – from the political to the social – demonstrate that this sense, or perception, of exclusion is based in reality, albeit a reality beholding a fair degree of nuance. The responses to the Canadian atheist bus campaign demonstrate that the place of atheism and atheists in the current Canadian social and political landscape is contested, with examples of both acceptance and rejection of the opinions of atheists in the public sphere. 4.1 Context The history of atheism in Canada has not received much scholarly attention. There are, however, a few areas relating to law that shed light on the acceptability of atheism during various periods.5 Between 1901 and 1936 there 3 Ibid., 100. 4 By atheists we are referring to people who self-identify as atheist. Although some may define their atheisms in terms of scepticism, freethought, or humanism, to give but a few examples, a universal definition of an atheist is simply someone who is not a theist. 5 For a richer discussion and analysis of each case mentioned in this section, as well as a broader discussion of Canada’s historical and contemporary religious character as it pertains to atheism, see the second chapter of Steven Tomlins, Navigating Atheist Identities: An Analysis of Nonreligious Perceptions and Experiences in the Religiously Diverse Canadian City of Ottawa, Doctorate Thesis, Ottawa, 2016.

CANADA: THE STATUS OF ATHEISM IN CANADA’S MULTICULTURAL MOSAIC

83

were five recorded prosecutions for blasphemous libel in Canada and of these there were four convictions. While not all defendants were atheist, the use of this law against those who criticized Christianity and the Christian bible does show that although being an atheist was legal, the expression of certain atheistic ideas was, in essence, against the law. By 1965, however, the notion that religious tolerance and pluralism extended to atheists was widespread. This becomes evident when analyzing the discourse surrounding the case of atheist immigrants Ernest and Cornelia Bergsma and their legal battle(s) for Canadian citizenship. Originally denied citizenship because they openly acknowledged being atheists and were deemed by a judge to be unable to genuinely appeal to God during the oath of allegiance, their plight brought countless letters (addressed to newspapers as well as to the couple) which were overwhelmingly supportive, editorials in their favour, positive coverage, and the support of the federal government who offered to pay their legal bills. In a 1985 Supreme Court ruling (R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., which dealt with the legality of the ban on Sunday shopping), the judgement specified that ­Section 2. (a) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982), which guarantees freedom of conscience and beliefs, applies just as equally to atheists or other non-believers as it does to religious adherents: Religious belief and practice are historically prototypical and, in many ways, paradigmatic of conscientiously-held beliefs and manifestations and are therefore protected by the Charter. Equally protected, and for the same reasons, are expressions and manifestations of religious non-belief and refusals to participate in religious practice.6 By the late 1980s some atheists became noticeably active in the legal arena, occasionally arguing alongside religious minorities against the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer in public schools, the distribution of Christian bibles in public schools, and the use of prayer by town councils. They have met with varying degrees of success, but an analysis of the nuances pertaining to individual cases is not pragmatic for this discussion (a ruling that a town council can begin with a prayer so long as it is nondenominational, for example, can be perceived as a small victory or a loss).

6 R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., Supreme Court of Canada, April 24, 1985, Paragraph [123], emphasis in original.

84

TOMLINS AND CULHAM BULLIVANT

In 2011, according to Statistics Canada, 23.9 percent of Canadians considered themselves to have no religious affiliation.7 This is an increase of 7.9 percent since 2001, when 16 percent of Canadians reported having no religion. ­Although this figure includes more than just atheists, it does point to an increase in the nonreligious, and by extension, atheist demography in Canada. To this extent, the Canadian atheist bus campaign, which brought atheism and thus atheist citizens to the attention of the public, was a product of a growing minority; a minority that was increasingly expressing itself openly in public discourse. It can thus be understood as a public introduction to an increasingly relevant segment of the Canadian populace, one divided by individual ‘freethought’ but which contains a subset of Canadians engaged in specifically nonreligious organizational activities. The next section of this chapter explores the Canadian manifestation of the atheist bus campaign with a focus on why it was adopted in Canada. This is followed by a discussion on the legal responses to the campaign (how it was handled by municipal and city authorities, as well as advertising agencies), in essence uncovering how these official bodies sought to regulate atheist expressions. The section after that looks at the social (primarily religious groups and media) responses to the campaign. We conclude with a discussion that summarizes the insights gained into the status of atheism in multicultural Canada through this paper’s mapping and analysis of the Canadian atheist bus campaign. 4.2

The Atheist Bus Ads Campaign in Canada

The Canadian atheist bus campaign began after Canadian atheist Chris Hammond, inspired by the United Kingdom (uk) campaign, created both a Facebook group and a website, www.atheistbus.ca, and began collaborating with the Freethought Association of Canada to raise funds to bring the slogan to Canadian buses.8 The Freethought Association of Canada had originally considered using their own slogan, “Atheists have Faith in People,”9 but ­eventually opted for the uk slogan, which atheistbus.ca (“The Official Website of the ­Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign”) describes as: 7 “The Daily – 2011 National Household Survey: Immigration, place of birth, citizenship, ethnic origin, visible minorities, language and religion,” http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/ 130508/dq130508b-eng.htm, Statistics Canada, May 8, 2013, (accessed June 4, 2013). 8 “faq,” 2009, http://atheistbus.ca/faq/, Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign – Official Website, (accessed June 18, 2013). 9 Ibid.

CANADA: THE STATUS OF ATHEISM IN CANADA’S MULTICULTURAL MOSAIC

85

a fun, cheerful, and lighthearted way to engage with nonreligious and religious viewers. It’s also a friendly way to remind people that there probably isn’t a God, infact [sic] there almost certainly isn’t and it is perfectly acceptable not to believe in the Gods or God that so many religious people profess existence for. We can live moral, ethically sound, happy, and fulfilling lives without fear of hell or a big brother in the sky watching over us.10 Of the Canadian campaign’s choice of slogans, the uk campaign’s designer, Graham Nunn, explains: The ads in the us carried their own slogan (‘Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake’) but those behind the campaign in Canada asked if they could use the same slogan as us. I happily sent them the artwork and was delighted to see photographs of it paraded on buses in Calgary and Toronto.11 The ads first ran on buses and transit stations in Toronto. This initially successful campaign then expanded with proposed campaigns into Calgary, Montreal, Ottawa, Halifax, and Vancouver – in the latter two cities these proposals were rejected and the ads never ran. The legal cases involving this campaign will be addressed in the next section of this chapter. Several organizations were involved in the campaign to see atheist messages on city transit systems. Besides the Freethought Association of Canada, who worked in conjunction with atheistbus.ca, groups who provided organizational and/or financial support included The Humanist Association of Ottawa, The Dalhousie University Atheist Community, and the Centre for Inquiry. Humanist Canada created a separate campaign with a different slogan, “You Can be Good Without God,” which ran in Toronto and faced similar difficulties getting approval – including insurmountable rejection – in other cities, which will be addressed in greater detail in the next section. After the publication of an article in the Globe and Mail about the newly established atheistbus.ca website, the website stated that “national headlines were made, and a huge influx of donations poured in soon after, making this the largest and most successful 10 11

About, 2009, http://atheistbus.ca/about/, Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign – Official Website, (accessed June 18, 2013). Graham Nunn, “Designing the Atheist Bus Campaign,” in Ariane Sherine, There’s Probably No God: The Atheist’s Guide to Christmas, (Great Britain: The Friday Project, 2009), 277–285, 285.

86

TOMLINS AND CULHAM BULLIVANT

Canadian Atheist awareness campaign in all of Canadian history,” citing the amount raised for the initial campaign at $45,000.12 Julie Breeze, Director of the Humanist Association of Ottawa, a group who worked with atheistbus.ca and the Freethought Association of Canada to bring the British ads to the streets of Ottawa, explained that: People have opened their wallets to the campaign because they feel it gives a public voice to their point of view, in a way never seen before. It gives them a sense of solidarity with other atheists. They derive satisfaction from giving confidence to other nonbelievers and doubters who may feel bound by a need to appease religious family and friends.13 While it provided a sense of solidarity, as Breeze explains, the campaign was nonetheless officially explained as being about raising awareness and starting conversation between those of varied viewpoints. According to the official website: The Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign seeks to bring awareness to the general public about atheism, humanism, and the secularism. Through our ads we hope to spark conversations between believers and non-­ believers so that we may better understand each other and learn from one another.14 This message, that the ads were about raising awareness and increasing understanding between people, was either misunderstood, willfully ignored, rejected, or simply never known by one of Canada’s most prominent public intellectuals when he spoke to a popular philosophy magazine about the spreading campaign. One of the most interesting comments about the atheist bus campaign – from a Canadian perspective, at least – came from celebrated philosopher Charles Taylor, who mocked the campaign and ridiculed the reasoning behind it, leading in turn to a few noteworthy responses from the campaign’s spokespeople. Speaking to Philosophy Now magazine, Taylor said of the campaign: 12

faq. It is unclear if this figure is just for individual donations or if it also includes group donations as well. 13 Julie Breeze, Atheist Bus Ads in Ottawa, http://atheistbus.ca/2009/04/16/recap-of-atheist -ads-in-ottawa/, Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign – Official Website, April 16 2009, (accessed June 18, 2013). 14 About.

CANADA: THE STATUS OF ATHEISM IN CANADA’S MULTICULTURAL MOSAIC

87

Putting things on buses, as though that’s going to make people somehow change their view about God, the universe, the meaning of life and so on […] A bus slogan! It’s not likely to trigger something very fundamental in anybody,[…] This new phenomena is puzzling – atheists that want to spread the ‘gospel’, and are sometimes very angry. […] I think it may be rather like the response of certain bishops to Darwin in the 19th century, […] The bishops had a sense that the world was going in a certain ­direction – more and more conversion, and so on – and then they find they’re suddenly upset in their expectation and they get very rattled and very angry. […] similarly, we’re seeing this now among the secularizing intelligentsia – liberals who felt that the world was going in a certain direction, that it was all going according to plan – and then when it seems not to be, they get rattled. So you get these rather pathetic phenomena.15 Taylor, who is known for his writings on secularism, multiculturalism, and ­interculturalism, briefly made headlines in Canada, such as “Atheist bus ads ‘pathetic:’ Philosopher,” promoting a response from the Canadian campaign organizers. The President of the Freethought Association of Canada, Justin Trottier, was quick to argue that Taylor “misses the point on a number of fronts” and offered an explanation on the purpose of the campaign: The point of the campaign was not a response to rising religiosity, it’s an affirmation of the rising number of unbelievers. Unbelievers have never been organized to the extent that they are now – whether they call themselves atheists or humanists or freethinkers… The movement for science, reason and secularism has never had these numbers.16 Shortly after these initial comments, a major newspaper, the National Post, published an official response from Trottier, co-written by Michael Payton, which went into more detail explaining the purpose of the campaign, and why they believe Taylor’s comments were misguided: What Taylor failed to understand is that the bus campaign neither signals the emergence of a new reactionary movement nor is it catalyzed

15

Randy Boswell, “Atheist bus ads ‘pathetic:’ Philosopher,” http://www.canada.com/life/Ath eist+pathetic+Philosopher/1834362/story.html, Canada.com, July 27, 2009, (accessed July 27, 2009). 16 Ibid.

88

TOMLINS AND CULHAM BULLIVANT

by a “secularizing intelligentsia” that has woken up to realize the world isn’t what it thought it would be. As Canada undergoes secularization, atheist and secularist organizations, which have long existed alongside religious ones as a quiet part of the fabric of this diverse country, have grown steadily in a process. The atheist bus campaign may be a symbolic coming of age, but the movement that spawned it is certainly not new or reactionary. To the best of my knowledge, Taylor has never criticized edgy sloganeering from feminist or gay rights groups, nor the often offensive religious ads that have been on buses since buses first started operating in this country. Indeed, the ubiquitous religious ads are worth comparing to the bus campaign: Such advertising hardly adds to the diversity of Canada (given that religious organizations are already an acknowledged and welcome part of the public discourse). Atheist ads, on the other hand, have successfully added a major new dimension to the public debate.17 Trottier and Payton went on to conclude that the atheist bus ads “are not about crass conversion. They are a signal to the skeptic and the doubter to not be afraid to take the road toward rejection of religion. They are a challenge to everyone to engage in critical reflection of their deepest beliefs.”18 According to Trotter and Payton, the atheist bus campaign was not concocted because atheists felt rattled and angry as Taylor suggests, but rather, it served to support those prone to disbelief, enrich diversity, and engage the wider public in debate and reflection. This novel form of atheist communication came to Canadian streets in early 2009. Where the campaign was approved, Canadians were able to read on the sides of buses and in transit stations the message “There’s Probably no God, so Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life.” Where the campaign was rejected, the ads nevertheless raised important issues with regard to religion, atheism, public spaces, and the freedom of expression. 4.3

Legal Responses

The Freethought Association of Canada did not have any publicly known difficulty or legal obstacles to overcome while garnering approval in Toronto by 17

Justin Trottier, Michael Payton, “Defending Atheist Bus Ads,” http://life.nationalpost .com/2009/08/13/justin-trottier-and-michael-payton-defending-atheist-bus-ads/, Holy Post, National Post, August 13, 2009, (accessed August 13, 2009). 18 Ibid.

CANADA: THE STATUS OF ATHEISM IN CANADA’S MULTICULTURAL MOSAIC

89

the Toronto Transit Commission to bring the atheist ad campaign, with the ­message “There’s Probably No God, Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life,” to Toronto streets. On January 28, 2009, one day after the Toronto Transit Commission decided the atheist ads did not violate any of their rules, Toronto Transit Commission spokesman Brad Ross explained that, “[d]isallowing the ad may be a violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code and potentially a violation of the Charter… so we have to look at it from a legal basis, […] We don’t feel that there’s any grounds to disallow the ad.”19 On February 23, 2009, the ads began appearing on subway interiors and on March 2, 2009 they began running on the exterior of streetcars.20 The Humanist Association of Canada (also known as Humanist Canada)21 brought a complimentary bus campaign to Toronto, with a unique slogan catered to challenge the belief that morality comes from God, and by extension, that disbelieving in God leads to moral ambiguity or outright immorality (the ‘everything is permitted’ argument). From the Humanist Canada website: In 2009, Humanist Canada launched a transit station campaign in Toronto to raise awareness about Humanism. Rather than simply adopt the slogan of an existing campaign that originated in Britain (There’s probably no god so stop worrying and enjoy your life.), we chose something that spoke more to who we are rather than who we are not: “You Can be Good Without God” The myth that only people who believe in the power of a supernatural being are morally superior has persisted for far too long. Humanism holds that the development of morality, of a sense of right and wrong, is fundamental to the development of the human species. Without developing a rule of reciprocal altruism (otherwise known as ‘the golden rule’), chances are we wouldn’t have made it this far.22 19

20

21

22

Jeff Gray, “Toronto Church Leader Denounces Atheist ‘Attack Ads’,” http://old.richard dawkins.net/articles/3556, Globe and Mail, January 29, 2009, The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, (accessed June 20, 2013). Atheist Bus Hits Toronto Streets and Brick Wall in Ottawa, http://atheistbus.ca/2009/02/15/ atheist-bus-hits-toronto-streets-and-brick-wall-in-ottawa/#sthash.SEs2JCLo.dpuf, Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign – Official Website, February 15, 2009, (accessed June 20, 2013). Humanist Canada, founded in 1968, is a not-for-profit charitable organization that is engaged in “[p]romoting the separation of religion from public policy and fostering the development of reason, compassion and critical thinking for all Canadians through secular education and community support.” (“Vision, Mission, Values,” http://humanistcanada .ca/content/vision-mission-values, Humanist Canada, (accessed July 20, 2013.). “Humanism says…,” http://humanistcanada.ca/news/humanism-says, Humanist Canada, (accessed July 20, 2013).

90

TOMLINS AND CULHAM BULLIVANT

The “You Can be Good Without God” message was approved in Toronto where it was placed in Toronto transit stations starting on February 23, 2009. As with the atheist bus campaign and their UK-originated slogan, attempts to have these ads approved in Halifax and Vancouver were unsuccessful, and it does not appear from searching the Humanist Canada website and Canadian news media that the Humanist Canada campaign featuring the “You Can be Good Without God” message appeared on any buses outside of Toronto. The second city the atheist bus campaign (distinguished in this chapter from the Humanist Canada campaign by slogan) went to was Calgary, where it ran on eight busses for four weeks beginning on March 9, 2013. As with Toronto, there were no known difficulties in getting approval for the ads. It also ran in Montreal, paid for by the Quebec Humanist association, where it did not appear to have any legal issues. While receiving approval for the ads in Toronto, Calgary, and Montreal appears to have been a relatively smooth process, other cities, such as Halifax, Vancouver, and Ottawa, proved to be more difficult for those wishing to bring the “There’s Probably No God, Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life,” message to their streets. 4.3.1 Halifax On February 2, 2009, Sherry Kirwin, General Manager of Pattison Maritimes, declined the Freethought Association of Canada’s “There’s Probably No God, Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life” ads, effectively banning them from running on Halifax Metro Transit, with the following explanation: We are aware of your message due to the existing media coverage you are experiencing. We are not able to accept your message as it currently reads. If you would like to submit an alternative message, we will submit that for approval. If any potential ad message is deemed to be possibly controversial, we must advise the transit system. They rarely refuse creative content, however have advised us that in this particular case, your message has already stirred up enough media exposure across the country to be deemed controversial. All advertisements must meet acceptable community standards of good taste, quality and appearance. Furthermore, the ads will not be considered discriminatory, or objectionable to any race creed or moral standard.23 23

“Halifax says no to Atheist Bus Campaign slogan,” http://atheistbus.ca/2009/02/03/ halifax-says-no-to-atheist-bus-campaign-slogan/, Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign – Official Website, February 3, 2009, (accessed July 20, 2013).

CANADA: THE STATUS OF ATHEISM IN CANADA’S MULTICULTURAL MOSAIC

91

Chris Hammond of atheistbus.ca responded by posting Kirwin’s comments and calling for supporters to contact Halifax Metro Transit and Mayor Peter Kelley to share their concerns, primarily with regard to free speech. Hammond also noted that Halifax Metro Transit has previously run controversial advertisements: Metro Transit needs to understand the seriousness of the message they’re sending by rejecting an ad as benign as ours on the grounds that it doesn’t conform to their standards of “good taste, quality, and appearance.” ­Metro Transit has a history of running ads that are potentially objectionable, from Vagina Monologue ads that include the slogan “The Vaginas are coming” to ads for an anti-choice organization known as “Birthright.” We’re very concerned about our right to free speech – I think a lot of ­Haligonians are expressing similar concerns, so we’re really eager to sit down and discuss this face to face with Metro Transit.24 This post was later released as an official statement from the Freethought Association of Canada. On February 3, 2009, Lori Patterson, spokeswoman for Halifax Transit Public Affairs elaborated on the decision to reject the ads, saying the ads were known to be or were already viewed to be inflammatory or controversial before they reached this market. […I]t could be viewed as inflammatory to a certain group in population and that is certainly what we’re hearing. We have to recognize that this is an older area of the country and people still have, you know, traditional views. […] All the calls we’ve been getting have been against us running them. […] Anything considered to be objectionable to any race, creed, or moral standard, you know, we have the right to… or we can refuse. And I’ve not heard of… You know, we haven’t been approached by religious groups to my knowledge before.25 Here Patterson defends the decision not to allow the ads because it “could be viewed as inflammatory” to those with “traditional values.” She also adds that if an advertisement is objectionable to those of a specific “creed, or moral standard” Halifax Transit may refuse the ad. The goal seems to be the avoidance of controversy, but for practical reasons it is clearly quite selective. Sexually suggestive ads, ads showing ‘too much skin’, and even ads portraying 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid. This quote, reproduced on the Canadian Atheist Bus Ad Campaign official website, originated from an interview with cbc Radio One – Halifax.

92

TOMLINS AND CULHAM BULLIVANT

‘non-traditional’ families as normative have the potential to offend some segments of the population due to their alignment with a certain creed or their sense of morality. What made the atheist bus ads particularly controversial, at least according to Patterson, seems to be that they ran counter to the traditional values of “an older area of the country,” in that the area was not deemed ‘progressive’ enough to read an atheistic viewpoint without ­taking offense. Organizers of the official Canadian atheist bus campaign were not the only ones to have their message essentially deemed unfit for public consumption on a bus. Humanist Canada also had their ad rejected, which featured the slogan, “You can be Good without God.” Of this rejection, Lori Patterson told cbc News that “We’re a public transit system first, and then we sell advertising, […s]o, if anytime we feel there’s a message that could be controversial and upsetting to people, we don’t necessarily sell the ads.”26 According to cbc, Pat O’Brien, president of Humanist Canada, “said the transit authority would reconsider its position if Humanist Canada toned down its message. But O’Brien said that won’t happen.”27 O’Brien also commented, “It would be interesting to see what vegans think about the kfc ads. I mean, at what point do you stop offending people? […] Some people like it, some don’t. That’s fine. It’s all about getting the message out and getting the conversation going.”28 It is interesting that the message “You can be Good without God” was deemed by Patterson, and by extension Halifax Transit (or vice versa) as being a message that “could be controversial and unsettling to people.” In other words, the notion that atheists could possibly be ‘good’ (i.e. moral) was seen as offensive to at least some Halifax citizens, and that ‘some’ was enough to stop the message from being read by others. It is also interesting that, at least according to O’Brien, the ad would be reconsidered if the message could be toned down. Obviously, since it was rejected, the message was deemed too extreme in the first place, but it is hard to image how the ad could be “toned down” yet manage to retain a semblance of its meaning, especially since it seems to be the meaning in the first place that is offensive. As with the previous bus ad, the Humanist Canada ad was singled out for rejection when other potentially upsetting ads were approved, as O’Brien hinted at with his polemic pondering on how vegans may regard ads by a restaurant chain that sells chicken parts 26

“Halifax is keeping God off its buses,” http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/ story/2009/02/02/ns-transit-god.html, cbc News, February 2, 2009, (accessed February 2, 2009). cbc News is Canada’s state broadcaster, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. kfc refers to the popular restaurant chain Kentucky Fried Chicken.

CANADA: THE STATUS OF ATHEISM IN CANADA’S MULTICULTURAL MOSAIC

93

for consumption. Of course, the real reason the atheist ads were singled out in both cases seems to have more to do with the possible offense to religious belief. By extension this means that even though the messages were atheist, they were viewed as religiously charged, and like politics, religion is commonly perceived as something that should be avoided in polite conversation (and, unlike one’s opinions on food, never to be mentioned at dinner). On Feb 24, 2009, cbc News reported that, referring to the Freethought Association of Canada’s ads, “a representative” with Halifax Metro Transit informed them that they are “waiting for a supreme court decision on a similar dispute about bus ads in British Columbia before it reconsiders running the ads.”29 The court case being referred to was Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority v. Canadian Federation of Students – British Columbia Component. The case was about the legality of transit policies that ban political advertisements. On July 10, 2009, the Canadian Federation of Students and the British Columbia Teachers’ Federation were victorious, with the Supreme Court of Canada judging that the banning of political advertisements on buses was a violation of Section 2.b of the constitution, which allows for freedom of expression. In the ruling Justice Marie Deschamps wrote: Like a city street, a city bus is a public place where individuals can openly interact with each other and their surroundings. Thus, rather than undermining the purposes of s. 2(b), expression on the sides of buses could enhance them by furthering democratic discourse, and perhaps even truth finding and self-fulfilment. […] I do not see any aspect of the location that suggests that expression within it would undermine the values underlying free expression. On the contrary, the space allows for expression by a broad range of speakers to a large public audience and expression there could actually further the values underlying s. 2(b) of the Charter. I therefore conclude that the side of a bus is a location where expressive activity is protected by s. 2(b) of the Charter.30 This was also a victory for organizers and supporters of the atheist bus c­ ampaign, in that Halifax Metro Transit had claimed they were waiting for the results of that case before reconsidering the case. On the day of the ruling, Hammond, writing on behalf of atheistbus.ca, posted the following: 29 Ibid. 30 Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority v. Canadian Federation of Students – British Columbia Component, 2009 scc 31, [2009] 2 s.c.r. 295, Sections [43] and [46].

94

TOMLINS AND CULHAM BULLIVANT

This is great news for free speech but also great news for our atheist ad. Metro transit informed us months ago that they would revise their policy on advertising what some may deem ‘controversial’, if the courts ruled in favour of the Canadian Federation of Students. We are hopeful that Metro Transit will make good on their stated intentions and reconsider our proposed advertisements with as little additional delay as possible. […] On Monday we will be applying. Stay tuned for more details.31 Intriguingly, no more details have been posted on atheistbus.ca, nor has there been any news of any subsequent atheist ads being approved or rejected in Halifax. 4.3.2 Vancouver On February 3, 2009, it was reported that Humanist Canada “claimed it had bought advertising space in SeaBus terminals” (which is owned by TranLink) to have their ads with the “You Can Be Good Without God” slogan approved for display in Vancouver, British Columbia, but TransLink denied they had even been approached by the group.32 The next day it was reported that the b.c. Humanist Association “approached Lamar Transit Advertising over the potential for ads promoting atheism to appear on TransLink property” in Vancouver, but initial reports claimed the decision of whether they would be approved or not had to await a formal ad submission.33 When interviewed regarding being approached by the b.c. Humanist Association to run the ads with the slogan “There’s Probably No God, Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life,” Byron Montgomery, general manager of Lamar Transit Advertising, clarified that an ad had yet to be submitted and subsequently reviewed by Lamar Transit Advertising and TransLink, explaining that “We’re in discussions over what we can and cannot do on transit.”34 TransLink spokesman Ken Hardie confirmed

31

“Atheist Ads on the Horizon in Halifax,” http://atheistbus.ca/2009/07/10/atheist-ads-on -the-horizon-in-halifax/, Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign – Official Website, June 10, 2009, (accessed July 16, 2013). 32 “‘Good without God’ ad campaign raises questions in Vancouver: Similar ads rejected in Victoria and Halifax” http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/good-without -god-ad-campaign-raises-questions-in-vancouver-1.833983, cbc News, February 3, 2009, (accessed February 3, 2009). 33 Larry Pynn, “TransLink faces a devil of a question,” http://www2.canada.com/vancou versun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=e944ef6c-b361-4f46-bd00-a8596300218f, Vancouver Sun, February 04, 2009, (accessed February 04, 2009). 34 Ibid.

CANADA: THE STATUS OF ATHEISM IN CANADA’S MULTICULTURAL MOSAIC

95

that an ad had yet to be submitted: “They’ve made enquiries generally, but not actually made a firm order. […] The last we heard they have no money.”35 The relevant section of TransLink’s standards and limitations policy, which was picked up by media as its interpretation was assumed to play a major part in the decision making process, “states, in part: ‘No advertisement will be accepted which promotes or opposes a specific theology or religious ethic, point of view, policy or action’.”36 According to the Vancouver Sun, “bc Transit, which is responsible for transit in Victoria and 52 other communities in b.c., has the same policy on religious ads as TransLink and has not received any requests to date [February 4, 2009] for atheist ads.”37 bc Transit spokesperson Joanna Morton explained to cbc News how the ads could potentially be prohibited under their policy of banning religious and political ads: Our buses are a place of work. Our operators can’t choose which bus they drive in the morning, nor can our customers choose which bus they ride, so it is in the interest of our customers and our employees that we maintain a sense of control as to which advertising gets displayed on our buses.38 On February 14, 2009, it was reported that Humanist Canada’s ads were rejected by TransLink on the grounds that the slogan “You Can Be Good Without God” breaks their “policy prohibiting ads promoting or opposing any religious or theological views.”39 It was also reported that TransLink justified the decision to reject these ads because “it is only in the market of supporting goods and services.”40 On July 10, 2009, TransLink were subject to the Supreme Court of Canada ruling of Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority v. Canadian Federation of Students – British Columbia Component, which found that it was unconstitutional to ban advertisements on the grounds that they were political. This has also been interpreted to uphold the freedom to express religious or 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid. 38 Good. 39 “Does atheist message have a place on transit? TransLink has nixed plans by Humanist Canada for a ‘You Can Be Good Without God’ advertising campaign” http://www2 .canada.com/burnabynow/news/community/story.html?id=e5ddb133-c9a4-42ba-b51c -89c8a2a455cc, Burnaby Now, February 14, 2009, (accessed February 14, 2009). 40 Ibid.

96

TOMLINS AND CULHAM BULLIVANT

counter-religious beliefs. There have been no further media reports of TransLink running the atheist bus campaign ads, or the Humanist ads, in Vancouver. Following a new submission by another group, Kamloops Centre for Rational Thought, on April 11, 2011, bus ads featuring the “There Probably is no God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life” slogan began running on the interior of busses in Kelowna and Kamloops. The group was also behind a bus ad that ran in Victoria a week later which read “Don’t believe in God, you’re not alone.”41 The Province newspaper reported that Joanna Linsangan, spokesperson for bc Transit, said of the ads: “There really is no legal basis to not allow the ads […] We can’t refuse to run them just because they may offend someone.”42 The Province adds: “But she said if there are any concerns about drivers’ or passengers’ safety or vandalism to buses, the ads will be pulled.”43 Since there has not been any media coverage mentioning that the ads were subsequently pulled, one can assume the ads ran without any major incidents. 4.3.3 Ottawa On February 10, 2009, following approval in Toronto and Calgary, while still experiencing rejection in Halifax, the Freethought Association of Canada announced they were taking the campaign to Ottawa, with Trottier explaining, “Ottawa is a logical choice, […] As the political centre of our country we hope to send a message that secularism and non-believers be considered equally in political discussion.”44 The Humanist Association of Ottawa worked alongside the Freethought Association of Canada to bring the ads to the nation’s capital, but on February 15, 2009, atheistbus.ca reported that the Ottawa ads were rejected by Ottawa’s oc Transpo, who stated: “The Advertising Standards section of our contract specifically excludes religious advertising which might be offensive to transit users, so we cannot approve this ad.”45 Ottawa City council’s transit committee held a vote on the matter on February 18, 2009, which resulted in a tie. At the meeting Alain Mercier, the head of oc Transpo, said the ads violated the following section of oc Transpo’s advertising policy: “Religious advertising which promotes a specific ideology, 41

Susan Lazaruk, “Atheist bus ads ‘pushback’ against ‘fundamentalist crazies’,” http://www .theprovince.com/life/Atheist+pushback+against+fundamentalist+crazies/4550239/ story.html#ixzz1IVunkErD, The Province, April 2, 2011, (accessed July 28, 2013). 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid. 44 “Ottawa Next Stop on Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign,” http://atheistbus.ca/2009/02/10/ ottawa-next-stop-on-canadian-atheist-bus-campaign/, Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign – Official Website, February 10, 2009, (accessed July 25, 2013). 45 Ibid.

CANADA: THE STATUS OF ATHEISM IN CANADA’S MULTICULTURAL MOSAIC

97

ethic, point of view, policy or action, which in the opinion of the city might be deemed prejudicial to other religious groups or offensive to users of the transit system, is not permitted.”46 Councillor Marianne Wilkinson voted against the motion to allow the ads, arguing that the ads were an offense to her personally: I don’t think we should be demeaning people in advertising at oc Transpo […] I think the words are offensive to everyone who believes in God, regardless of what religion they are. To me, as a Christian, it is demeaning. It grates on me.47 Councillor Alex Cullen, the Chair of the Transit Committee, voted in favour of allowing the ads, claiming that not allowing them was censorship: “To say that this particular group can’t speak is to say no Christian can speak, no Muslim can speak, no Jew can speak.”48 After the tie-vote – which would usually result in the motion’s defeat – Cullen announced that he would bring the matter to city council for a final vote whereby the matter would be resolved. Members of the Humanist Association of Ottawa attended the meeting to address both the committee and the media. Julie Breeze, director of the Humanist Association of Ottawa, later wrote about the ban, explaining that to her it was about being treated equally: The Humanist Association of Ottawa teamed up with the Freethought Association of Canada and atheistbus.ca to put [uk campaign creator Ariane] Sherine’s ads on Ottawa buses. We were told that the Transit Committee had rejected our ads, but [Pattison Outdoors], the company which places advertising on the buses, offered us a discounted rate on roadside billboard ads instead. We thought about the billboards but decided to stick with our original application, since oc Transpo had previously approved a number of Christian ads for the buses and we saw no reason why we should not receive equal treatment.49

46

Jake Rupert, “Council to decide whether oc Transpo should take pro-atheism ads,” http://www .ottawacitizen.com/Entertainment/Council+decide+whether+Transpo+should+take +atheism/1303023/story.html, The Ottawa Citizen, February 18, 2009, (accessed February 18, 2009). 47 Ibid. 48 Ibid. 49 Breeze.

98

TOMLINS AND CULHAM BULLIVANT

The Ottawa Citizen newspaper quoted Breeze on the day of the tied-vote as saying: “We will continue to fight this, […] There are a lot of people out there that share our views, and we are very disappointed that the motion didn’t pass. We would like to see an open dialogue in this city where differing views are allowed to be presented.”50 As in the case with Halifax, the organizers behind the campaign considered the rejection of the ads to be an infringement of free speech51 and an affront to equal citizenship. On February 18, 2009, the same day of the tied-vote, an editorial by Trottier was published in the Ottawa Citizen. In this editorial Trottier addressed how the Canadian atheist campaign has become an issue of freedom of expression: That freedom of expression is a key issue for us may be no surprise considering the refusal by Ottawa, Halifax, Vancouver and other city transit operations52 to run our ads. But the Centre for Inquiry’s Campaign for Free Expression was inaugurated half a year ago when we recognized that censorship was becoming a defining issue in Canada, with human rights commissions across the country hearing cases involving such matters as the publication of religiously offensive words and pictures. The banning of these ads is another attempt by governmental authorities to decide what Canadian citizens ought to be exposed to. We are fighting for everyone’s right to promote their values – religious and secular alike – in a neutral public square.53 Trottier clearly saw the issue as one of freedom of speech verses censorship, and framed the case as one in which governmental authorities were behind judging which values can be accepted in a public sphere. On March 11, 2009, Ottawa City Council voted ‘yes’ to a motion, moved by councillor A. Cullen and seconded by councillor J. Legendre, which directed oc Transpo to accept the ads. The motion is worth quoting in full, since it includes the legal rationale behind approving the ads: 50 Rupert. 51 Although Canadians do not have a constitutional right to free speech, they do have the right to freedom of expression, and since speech is an expression it is, in practice, treated as a constitutional freedom. 52 It is unclear what other city transit operations Trottier is referring to, as they have not ben publicly reported on. 53 Justin Trottier, “Kicked Off the Bus; My Editorial is Published in the Ottawa Citizen,” http://atheistbus.ca/2009/02/19/kicked-off-the-bus-my-editorial-is-pubished-in-the -ottawa-citizen/#sthash.QKyugacb.dpuf, Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign – Official Website, February 19, 2009, (accessed July 25, 2013).

CANADA: THE STATUS OF ATHEISM IN CANADA’S MULTICULTURAL MOSAIC

99

WHEREAS the Free Thought Association of Canada is running an advertisement campaign on public transit buses that states “There’s Probably No God. Now Stop Worrying And Enjoy Your Life”; and, WHEREAS these ads are running on buses in Toronto and Calgary, but have been rejected by oc Transpo based on their interpretation of their policy that this message “might be deemed prejudicial to other religious groups or offensive to users of the transit system”; and, WHEREAS the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: “2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;” and, WHEREAS these fundamental freedoms can be “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” (Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms); and, WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada, in interpreting the application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, has ruled that a public transit company, city or municipality cannot impose a blanket ban on religious (or political) advertising (Canadian Federation of Students vs. Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority); and, WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada, in interpreting the application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, has ruled that no individual has a right not to be offended, in particular: “The key is that people will disagree about important issues, and such disagreement, where it does not imperil community living, must be capable of being accommodated at the core of a modern pluralism. People are free to disagree with our beliefs as they wish.” (Chamberlain vs. Surrey School District No. 36); and, WHEREAS the Canadian Human Rights Commission has stated: “The essence of the concept of the freedom of religion is: the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal; and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination.”; and, WHEREAS the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards, in Section 14 – Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals, states: “It is recognized that advertisements may be distasteful without necessarily conflicting with the provisions of this Clause (14); and the fact that a particular product or service may be offensive to some people is not sufficient grounds for objecting to an advertisement for that product or service.”;

100

TOMLINS AND CULHAM BULLIVANT

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that oc Transpo be directed to accept the ads proposed by the Free Thought Association of Canada (subject to the usual charges).54 The vote was 13–7 in favour of the motion. City councillor Diane Holmes explained the reasoning behind the vote passing to ctv News: The advice from the legal department is that we don’t have a legal leg to stand on to prevent these kinds of ads on the buses, […] It would have helped if oc Transpo had asked our legal department for advice before they took a decision on this and we might have prevented all this controversy, […] If it was any kind of hatred that was being promulgated that would be entirely different, but this is an open religious discussion that most of my residents feel should be allowed to continue.55 The Ottawa Citizen pointed out in their coverage of the vote, that the “city’s solicitor, Rick O’Connor, gave councillors a legal opinion that if the city goes ahead with banning the ads, the move could be challenged in court and the city would likely lose.” The Ottawa Citizen also noted that on the day of the vote “[t]he only councillor to speak clearly against the move was Orléans Councillor Bob Monette, who said that council should show respect for the church and should never condone the placement of offensive ads on public property.”56 On April 13, 2009, atheistbus.ca issued a press release stating that the “atheist ads are now up on buses in Ottawa.”57 The press release also noted that the “ads are an invitation to begin dialogue, discussion, and demonstrate

54

55

56

57

“Ottawa City Council to Rule on Atheist Bus Ads + Calgary Bus Ads Up and Running!” http://atheistbus.ca/2009/03/10/ottawa-city-council-to-rule-on-atheist-bus-ads-calgary -bus-ads-up-and-running/, Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign – Official Website, March 10, 2009, (accessed July 17, 2013). “City council votes to allow bus ads that question God,” http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/city -council-votes-to-allow-bus-ads-that-question-god-1.378257#ixzz2bLnrOsDn, ctv News, with a report from Catherine Lathem, March 11, 2009, (accessed March 11, 2009). Patrick Dare, “Atheist ads can go on buses, council decides,” http://www.ottawacitizen .com/news/Atheist+buses+council+decides/1378757/story.html, The Ottawa Citizen, March 11, 2009, (accessed March 11, 2009). “Atheist bus campaign rolls into Ottawa (Media Release),” http://atheistbus.ca/2009/04/14/ atheist-bus-campaign-rolls-into-ottawa-media-release/#sthash.J2QRKlwu.dpuf, Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign – Official Website, April 14, 2009, (accessed July 26, 2013).

CANADA: THE STATUS OF ATHEISM IN CANADA’S MULTICULTURAL MOSAIC

101

the principles of freedom of expression and religion that apply equally to nonbelievers and people of all faiths.”58 The legal responses to the atheist bus campaign across the country were varied, with Toronto, Calgary, and Montreal accepting the ads without issue, Halifax and Vancouver rejecting the ads outright, and Ottawa initially rejecting the ads but eventually accepting them. As mentioned in the previous section, a year after the initial campaign the same UK-based slogan also ran in Kelowna and Kamloops, and a different atheist ad ran in Victoria.59 The controversy surrounding the legality of atheist bus advertisements increased the ads profile in terms of the public’s awareness of the campaign, and it is to the social responses of the campaign, from media, interest groups, and opinionated members of the public, that we now turn. 4.4

Social Responses

The United Church of Canada preemptively responded to the Canadian atheist bus campaign by initiating a national newspaper advertisement campaign. Their response to the atheist slogan “There’s Probably No God, Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life,” was to campaign with the following slogan: “There’s probably a God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” The ads directed readers to the United Church’s website, wondercafe.ca, for discussion on the topic of God’s existence. Reverend Keith Howard, executive director of the United Church’s Emerging Spirit Campaign, explained that they saw the atheist ads as a call for discussion, and that is what their ads also called for: I didn’t find [the atheist ads] particularly offensive […] Really what they were trying to do was prompt some discussion. They are by the Freethought Association of Canada. I assume by that title it’s not just a cover and they are trying to promote conversation.60 Of the United Church ads specifically, Reverend Howard explained that “They’re meant to get people to think about and talk about God in a manner 58 Ibid. 59 Jusdging by the lack of media coverage on these three British Columbia 2011 campaigns they assumedly occurred without incident. 60 Emily Mathieu, “Church ad builds on idea” http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/ article/579530, The Toronto Star, January 30, 2009, (accessed January 30, 2009).

102

TOMLINS AND CULHAM BULLIVANT

that has kind of a respect and a sense of playfulness.”61 As part of their campaign, the Wondercafe website also held a poll asking visitors to vote on whether or not there is a God. A few days after the United Church campaign began, the “there’s probably not a God” position was in the lead with 53 percent of the votes compared to 47 percent on the “there probably is a God” side.62 The results of this online poll were welcome news to Katie Kish, the vice-president of the Freethought Association of Canada, who said, “It’s just kind of funny, […] They’ve put this huge ad in the Globe and Mail that links to Wondercafe. Then you go to their discussion and we’re winning, so that gives us more press and more people coming to find us.”63 Besides the extra publicity the United Church campaign gave the atheist campaign, Kish also saw value in engaging in discourse with the Christian church group: I think this opens up a lot of good opportunities to work with the United Church of Canada – if they’ll work with us – in holding discussion panels and creating a really big campaign that will have atheists understanding those with beliefs and those with beliefs understanding those without beliefs.64 In response to this offer of co-operative discussion ventures, Reverend Howard is quoted as saying: I think that’s a possibility, […] I think those kinds of events, as long as they’re done in a good manner, are kind of interesting events. […] Given the issues people are facing today, the old way of having polarized discussions about almost anything just doesn’t seem to be working for us… I think we’re trying to reach for a new way for people to have a respectful, civilized discourse.65 While some members of religious communities saw the Canadian atheist bus campaign as an opportunity, others were less appreciative of it, although they too responded with an ad campaign containing a counter message. 61

Alex Nino Gheciu, “United Church and Atheists Make Great Frenemies,” http://torontoist .com/2009/02/united_church_and_atheists_make_gre.php, The Torontoist, February 5, 2009, (accessed February 5, 2009). 62 Ibid. 63 Ibid. Italics added. 64 Ibid. 65 Ibid.

CANADA: THE STATUS OF ATHEISM IN CANADA’S MULTICULTURAL MOSAIC

103

In Calgary a multi-faith group called God Exists was created to counter the atheist bus ads with the message, “God cares for everyone… even for those who say He doesn’t exist!” The message ran on eight Calgary buses and on two of the city’s C-Trains.66 Heading this initiative was Imam Syed Soharwardy, president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, who paid the initial $12,000 cost of the campaign on his credit card, which was subsequently paid off from donations by “Calgarians of various faiths, especially Christians.”67 While the atheist ads provided the impetuous to the response ads, Soharwardy seems less appreciative of the opportunity to engage in public discussion on the matter of God’s existence with atheists, at least through advertisements, than Reverend Howard of the United Church, explaining that he was “forced to do a countercampaign,” in response to the atheist insinuation that belief in God causes worry in people’s lives.68 Soharwardy’s response, as well as that of God Exists, for which he acted as spokesperson, was to call for Canadians in other cities where the atheist ads were also running “to come forward and launch their campaigns, to have ­Canadians of different communities unite,” offering them support while doing so: “If they need our support, we will definitely be there to help them.”69 The response to the God Exists campaign from Cliff Erasmus, acting as spokesman for the Calgary branch of the atheist bus campaign, consisted of criticism, (“Where are the facts God does exist? Where’s the empirical evidence – that’s what we look for.”70), self-congratulations (“They are answering our call for dialogue.”71), and expressing the discourse as a welcome addition to the discussion. Of the latter point, those from both perspectives on the probability of God’s existence agreed to engage in future discourse, with Erasmus telling the media that a debate between them was being planned, and Soharwardy

66

Patti Edgar, “‘God Exists’ group buys own bus ads in Calgary,” http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ calgary/story/2009/03/20/cgy-god-exists-bus-ads-atheist.html, cbc News, March 20, 2009, (accessed March 20, 2009). 67 Ibid. 68 Ibid. According to Soharwardy, “The message they are saying is that believing in God creates worries, that it takes away joy from people’s life, which is wrong. It is not true, […] Believing in God brings strength, especially in this economic crisis when millions of people face losing their jobs.” 69 Bill Kaufmann, “Atheists and believers faith off on buses,” http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/ Alberta/2009/03/24/8861831-sun.html, Calgary Sun, March 24, 2009, (accessed March 24, 2009). 70 Ibid. 71 Edgar.

104

TOMLINS AND CULHAM BULLIVANT

responding that he welcomes such a debate, “I have been trying for many years to organize a dialogue.”72 Individual reactions to the atheist bus campaign that became part of the larger media discourse include those from people who were behind the initial and counter-ad campaigns, but also those who felt passionate enough about the ads to write opinion articles (columns; editorials; letters to the editor), address city council (Ottawa), and speak to reporters as rally attendees (Halifax). While it is beyond the scope of this chapter to list each and every viewpoint, it is worthwhile quoting a few passionate voices to gain a better sense of what their concerns were. Those who have previously been cited will not be repeated here; the focus is not on those behind the campaign, counter-campaigns, or with decision-making power, but rather, the focus is on those not directly affiliated with the campaign who may offer further insight into how Canadians understood the atheist bus campaign advertisements. Charles McVety, President of Canada Christian College, explained that he found the ads problematic in that he saw them as an attack on those with faith, and he felt that such an attack should not occur in public spaces: I am all for freedom of speech, but in this case this organization is attempting to use public space to attack people of faith and say that they worry and don’t enjoy a happy life. If they want to do it on their own, no problem. But if they want to attack other people and show intolerance for (their) belief systems, then that is… bigotry and public space is no place for bigotry.73 The bigotry that McVety finds in the ads seems to stem from the insinuation that people of faith worry and do not enjoy their lives: “When they go on and accuse people of faith of being worriers that don’t enjoy life I am offended and people of faith are offended.”74 He went on to explain that while the discussion itself has merit, putting the ads on city buses was not the proper way to initiate said discussion, calling the atheist offerings “divisive, uncivil attack ads.”75 Ottawa resident Theresa Milligan, who spoke at the Ottawa city council meeting prior to council’s decision to allow the ads, echoed McVety’s concern, explaining that the ads were, “an implied statement of hatred against 72 Kaufmann. 73 Mathieu. 74 Ibid. 75 Ibid.

CANADA: THE STATUS OF ATHEISM IN CANADA’S MULTICULTURAL MOSAIC

105

all people­who believe God exists.”76 While “hatred” is a loaded term when applied to criminal law, in this context a colloquial understanding of the term as a feeling directed from one to another paints Milligan’s concern in light of the ads being an attack on the faithful rather than an affirmation of disbelief. Charles W. Moore, writing an opinion piece in Halifax’s The Chronicle Herald, found the advertisement “factually misleading,” arguing that, “[m]ost Christians, and probably other religiously devout, will affirm that they find faith a comfort, not a cause of anxiety – an assertion that’s been verified over and over in scientific studies.”77 Moore’s criticism is that the ads promote a “direct, in-your-face advocacy of a philosophical view ridiculing the sacred belief of a large majority of Canadians using a publicly-funded medium,” whereas if the bus ads promoted an atheist “Freethought Jamboree or some such,” he “wouldn’t object to buses carrying ads for that.”78 One thing that McVety, Milligan, and Moore have in common is that their problems with the atheist ads relate to their interpretation of the message as a factually incorrect attack on believers in God, rather than a positive affirmation of disbelief in God. While there were certainly critics of the atheist bus ads from those of religious dispositions, there were also those of such persuasion who thought of the ads as a positive development. Don Hutchinson, Vice-President of the Centre for Faith and Public Life and General Legal Counsel with The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, for example, wrote an article in support of the ads which was given the subtitle: “It appears atheists are welcoming a discussion of religion in the public square. That’s really good news!”79 Hutchinson’s main argument was that religion should be debated in the public sphere: “I am hopeful that these ads dealing with ‘freedom of conscience and religion’ (see the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section  2) will open up a public venue to consider other matters of religious belief.”80 Hutchinson cites the “silencing” of “pro-life clubs” on Canadian university campuses and in some public advertising as examples where religious opinions have been banned, but he remains hopeful that more religious organizations will be permitted to express 76 Rupert. 77 Charles W. Moore, “Atheist ad chases wrong bus: Science demonstrates that the ‘don’t worry, be happy’ lifestyle is in fact a blessing bestowed mostly on believers,” http:// thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1132392.html, The Chronicle Herald, July 15, 2009, (accessed July 15, 2009). 78 Ibid. 79 Don Hutchinson, “It appears atheists are welcoming a discussion of religion in the public square. That’s really good news!” http://www.christianity.ca/NetCommunity/Page .aspx?pid=6461, Christianity.ca, 2009, (accessed August 5. 2009). 80 Ibid.

106

TOMLINS AND CULHAM BULLIVANT

their views in public as a result of the atheist bus campaign sparking religious debate in public. He concludes: Cultural pluralism requires respect for the qualitative differences between beliefs and the freedom to civilly share and discuss those beliefs. Life in the public square will certainly be enhanced when we can all stop worrying about whether or not it is an appropriate place to share our beliefs, or for others to share theirs, and just enter into the discussion.81 Reverend Drew Strickland, a minister at Calgary’s Knox United Church, also found the atheist bus ads to have some value to religion, in terms of generating discussion. While he did not agree with the ads message, he thought the ads opened up an opportunity to challenge people’s popular conception of God as a judgmental old man, which he considers “out of date”: “The kind of God that you have been taught about or believe in probably does not exist […therefore] the statement’s probably right, when you [view] it in that context.82 Other opinion pieces, those coming from neither openly atheist or religious voices, held mixed messages. A Burnaby Now editorial, for instance, offered the opinion that “Vancouver commuters are more open-minded than TransLink credits,” and noted that TransLink’s claim that it was against religious advertising, or that “it is only in the market of supporting goods and services,” as they phrased it, was inaccurate: [A]ny regular transit user will notice blatantly religious organizations such as the Salvation Army or Union Gospel Mission have been advertising their theologically based, albeit humanitarian, services for years.83 Although this supports the atheist position that the ads should have been accepted, this editorial also criticized Humanist Canada’s Pat O’Brien for implying that Toronto’s “acceptance of religious advertising paved the way for the success of Toronto’s atheist campaign” on the one hand while also insisting that “atheism is not a religion or theology” on the other.84 It concludes by arguing that “[p]erhaps middle ground could be found if Humanist Canada offered 81 Ibid. 82 Jeremy Klaszus, “God speaks out on atheist bus ads,” http://www.ffwdweekly.com/article/ news-views/streeter/god-speaks-out-on-atheist-bus-ads-3271/, Fast Forward Weekly, February 5, 2009, (accessed August 5, 2009). 83 Does. 84 Ibid.

CANADA: THE STATUS OF ATHEISM IN CANADA’S MULTICULTURAL MOSAIC

107

a service. Who’s up for a trip to the atheist food bank?”85 The editorial board of Burnaby Now thus supports the right for atheists to advertise in public spaces while also criticizing atheist organizations as not being charitable. Popular Canadian author, and noted Humanist,86 Margaret Atwood commented publicly on the atheist bus campaign (the initial uk campaign specifically, but her comments have implications for the Canadian version since they carried the same slogan). Atwood was quoted as saying: We seem to be hard-wired to have a belief system of some kind, […] Even atheism. I understand that in Britain recently, some people paid to put atheistic slogans on buses – someone paid! That’s religion! Once you’re paying money to put slogans on things, well it’s either a product you’re selling, a political party or religion.87 Unlike the Burnaby Now editorial, which equates charity with religion and misrepresents atheist organizations as non-charitable, Atwood considers atheism to be a religion and points to the bus campaign as proof. She does not do this in a condescending manner, however, instead using the reference in order to make a larger point about humans seeming to “be hard-wired to have a belief system.” The main point here, however, is that the campaign was used by editorialists and public figures to articulate opinions about what atheism is as opposed to simply commenting on the controversy itself. As for the ‘popular’ reaction to the “There’s Probably no God, Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life,” ads from Canadians in general, a Canadian Harris-Decima telephone poll conducted March 19–22, 2009, found that most Canadians were generally indifferent to them, although there was a split between those who felt the ads should be allowed on buses (48 percent of respondents), and those who felt the adds should not be allowed (40 percent of respondents).88 85 Ibid. 86 Atwood won the American Humanist Association award for Humanist of the Year in 1987. 87 Sinclair McKay, “Margaret Atwood: The Canadian novelist talks to Sinclair McKay about books and bees,” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/6061404/Margaret-Atwood .html, The Telegraph, August 20, 2009, (accessed October 23, 2013). 88 “Most Canadians indifferent to atheist bus ads: poll,” http://www.theglobeandmail.com/ servlet/story/RTGAM.20090325.waethist0325/BNStory/National/home, Globe and Mail, March 25, 2009, (accessed March 25, 2009). “The results are considered accurate to within 3.1 percentage points 19 times in 20.” Other interesting results from the poll include the following, “Support for the ads was strongest among respondents in British Columbia and Ontario, with the highest opposition in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Support also varied

108

TOMLINS AND CULHAM BULLIVANT

Although the ‘allow’ side was 8 points higher than the ‘disallow’ side, it does point to a large population of Canadians being hesitant to either have religious discussions in public space, or being intolerant of atheist messages in general. Our reading of the poll results is admittedly different from that of Jeff Walker, vice-president of Harris-Decima, who read them as saying “Canadians have always been of a mind to say: ‘Whether I support or oppose something is a separate question to whether it should be acceptable in society or not’. We’ve seen that on lots of issues and I think that’s what we see here.”89 The Canadian Press, in turn, interpreted Mr. Walker’s reading of the results as saying, “People may not like the idea, but they’re reluctant to ban it.” While this is true for 48 percent of respondents, it seems misleading to dismiss the 40 percent who expressed opposition to allowing the ads when generalizing how Canadians feel about the ads’ appropriateness, at least on city buses. As for the survey’s main finding, however, it does point to a sense of indifference, with the ads themselves receiving 20 percent support from respondents, 32 percent opposition, and 43 percent indifference, those who responded that they “didn’t care one way or the other.”90 While the Harris-Decima poll suggests a Canadian indifference to the ads, the media’s coverage of the campaign, religious interest groups’ counter-campaigns, and commentaries on the campaign do tell a different story. The story they tell is of a debate in Canada taking place between atheists and theists. This debate touches on issues of free speech, philosophical and theological reflections on the existence of God, and the ‘place for’ religious expression in Canada, a country which has no official wall of separation between church and state, but does have a constitutional framework of multiculturalism. While this framework has at its core the notion that all cultures receive equal treatment, and by extension, that no religious culture receives privileged treatment, the atheist bus campaign does raise the question: how does atheism fit into multicultural theory and ­practice – or does the framework of multiculturalism even include atheism? 4.5

Concluding Discussion

The atheist bus campaign shows both inclusion and exclusion of atheism in terms of being an equal partner in the Canadian multicultural mosaic. On one by age and income, with younger respondents and those making more than $60,000 a year more likely to favour running the ads.” 89 Ibid. 90 Ibid.

CANADA: THE STATUS OF ATHEISM IN CANADA’S MULTICULTURAL MOSAIC

109

hand, the decisions by Toronto, Calgary, and Montreal to allow for the atheist bus ads to run without question shows inclusion – atheist groups, in this case, were as equally permitted as religious groups to place their message in public spaces. In fact, decision makers often treated the ads as religious messages. When the Toronto campaign was announced, Adam Giambrone, the chair of the Toronto Transit Commission, said, “[w]e are going to accept the ads because we accept religious advertising […] Our legal interpretation is that you cannot d­ iscriminate based on creed.”91 The eventual decision of Ottawa to run the ads shows willingness, after a period of reflection, to extend the same f­ reedom of ­expression – which had been granted to theists without c­ ontroversy – to ­atheists. Vancouver and Halifax, two cities separated by thousands of kilometers and situated on separate oceans, had a response of exclusion. It is worth noting that the actual ‘controversy’ surrounding the atheist bus campaign in Canada seems to have had more to do with the decision-making process regarding the acceptability of ‘religious’ and ‘atheist’ ads in public than it did with the public’s genuine ability to cope with the content of the ads themselves. In fact, the social responses point to a desire, even from some religious groups adamantly opposed to the atheist’s message, to see freedom of expression extended to atheist groups in public spaces. There were, and will continue to be, those who argue that being personally offended by specific ads is reason enough for such ads to be banned, but their opinion seems to be the minority one. The ­majority seem to either not care, (as is suggested by the Harris-Decima poll which found 43 percent of Canadians indifferent to the ads), or to care enough to engage in the public debate, be it from writing a letter to an editor or paying for a c­ ounter-campaign. This means that, notwithstanding the concerns of those with the authority to reject the ads, the Canadian populace by and large considers atheists to be as equally entitled to express their opinions as everyone else. As such, the notion that atheism belongs under multiculturalism as an equal culture – or, more accurately, that ‘atheisms’ belong under the same multicultural framework as other cultures – worthy of the same rights as other cultures, individual or group, may be an underlining assumption in Canada; at the very least, it would (arguably) likely not come across as a shocking or controversial proposal to most Canadians. In recent years Canadians have prided themselves, in terms of national ­identity, as being multicultural, and although the authorities in charge of accepting or rejecting advertisements in public spaces may treat atheist ­messages as c­ ontroversial, (and by extension treat atheists as outsiders, or outside of the mainstream), the social responses to the atheist bus campaign hint at a desire 91 Mathieu.

110

TOMLINS AND CULHAM BULLIVANT

for, or at least an acceptance of, atheists being treated as equally worthy of publicly expressing an opinion as those with more popular opinions. On the other hand, the fact that the messages, and by extension the opinions of ­atheists, were treated by authorities in Halifax, Ottawa, and Vancouver as controversial does point to atheism’s treatment as an equal partner under the multicultural framework to be lacking in some official (i.e. governmental) contexts. The atheist bus campaign was a novel approach toward raising awareness in Canada to the fact that there is a significant and growing community of atheists that have essentially been invisible in the public sphere. Initial reactions to the campaign may be different from reflective reactions, as the case in Ottawa shows, so as Canadians in general become increasingly aware of atheists and other ‘religious nones’ who make up the fastest growing segment of Canadian society it will be interesting to see how Canadians react to future campaigns, legally and socially. The place of atheism, or at least atheist opinions, in public spaces is presently contested in Canada, but atheists have been increasing in visibility and contributions to the national discourse, essentially embarking on a program of ‘normalizing’ atheism as ‘just another’ form of being Canadian within a diverse Canada. Trottier and Payton, in their editorial “Defending atheist bus ads” for the National Post’s Holy Post wrote: Thanks to such assertive advertising and other controversial and edgy manoeuvres, atheists have now emerged alongside the religious in the media – they are regular[ly] involved in radio and tv debates, public discussion on campuses and are even invited to contribute to newspaper projects like Holy Post. Who would object to this trend in a country like Canada?92 Indeed, atheists are certainly becoming more visible in Canada, and as their visibility increases we can expect to hear from an increasing number of voices that suitably answer the question they ask, as well as from an increasing number of voices in support of the trend they cite. There will also likely remain a significant number of Canadians who remain indifferent – it will be interesting to see if they remain the majority, or if their numbers slowly get chipped off by the reporting of future ‘controversies’ and the varied opinions which public controversies tend to create and nourish.

92 Trottier.

CANADA: THE STATUS OF ATHEISM IN CANADA’S MULTICULTURAL MOSAIC

111

References About. 2009. Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign – Official Website. http://atheistbus.ca/ about/ (accessed June 18, 2013). Aizenstat, Janet; Romney, Paul; Gentles, Ian; and Gairdner, William D. 2003. Canada’s Founding Debates. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. “Atheist Ads on the Horizon in Halifax.” Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign – Official Website. June 10, 2009. http://atheistbus.ca/2009/07/10/atheist-ads-on-the-horizon-inhalifax/ (accessed July 16, 2013). “Atheist bus campaign rolls into Ottawa (Media Release).” Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign – Official Website. April 14, 2009. http://atheistbus.ca/2009/04/14/atheist-buscampaign-rolls-into-ottawa-media-release/#sthash.J2QRKlwu.dpuf (accessed July 26, 2013). “Atheist Bus Hits Toronto Streets and Brick Wall in Ottawa.” Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign – Official Website. February 15, 2009. http://atheistbus.ca/2009/02/15/ atheist-bus-hits-toronto-streets-and-brick-wall-in-ottawa/#sthash.SEs2JCLo.dpuf (accessed June 20, 2013). Boswell, Randy. July 27, 2009. “Atheist bus ads ‘pathetic:’ Philosopher.”Canada.com. http://www.canada.com/life/Atheist+pathetic+Philosopher/1834362/story.html (accessed July 27, 2009). Breeze, Julie. April 16 2009. “Atheist Bus Ads in Ottawa.” Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign  – Official Website. http://atheistbus.ca/2009/04/16/recap-of-atheist-ads -in-ottawa/ (accessed June 18, 2013). “City council votes to allow bus ads that question God.” CTV News, with a report from Lathem, Catherine. March 11, 2009. http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/city-council-votes -to-allow-bus-ads-that-question-god-1.378257#ixzz2bLnrOsDn (accessed March 11, 2009). Dare, Patrick. March 11, 2009. “Atheist ads can go on buses, council decides.” The Ottawa Citizen. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Atheist+buses+council+deci des/1378757/story.html (accessed March 11, 2009). “Does atheist message have a place on transit? TransLink has nixed plans by Humanist Canada for a ‘You Can Be Good Without God’ advertising campaign.” Burnaby Now. February 14, 2009. http://www2.canada.com/burnabynow/news/community/story .html?id=e5ddb133-c9a4-42ba-b51c-89c8a2a455cc (accessed February 14, 2009). Edgar, Patti. March 20, 2009. “‘God Exists’ group buys own bus ads in Calgary.” CBC News. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2009/03/20/cgy-god-exists-bus-ads -atheist.html. (accessed March 20, 2009). “FAQ.” 2009. Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign – Official Website. http://atheistbus.ca/ faq/ (accessed June 18, 2013).

112

TOMLINS AND CULHAM BULLIVANT

Gheciu, Alex Nino. February 5, 2009. “United Church and Atheists Make Great Frenemies.” The Torontoist. http://torontoist.com/2009/02/united_church_and_atheists_ make_gre.php. (accessed February 5, 2009). “‘Good without God’ ad campaign raises questions in Vancouver: Similar ads rejected in Victoria and Halifax.” CBC News. February 3, 2009. http://www.cbc.ca/news/ canada/british-columbia/good-without-god-ad-campaign-raises-questions-in -vancouver-1.833983 (accessed February 3, 2009). Gray, Jeff. January 29, 2009. “Toronto Church Leader Denounces Atheist ‘Attack Ads’.” Globe and Mail. The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. http://old .richarddawkins.net/articles/3556 (accessed June 20, 2013). Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority v. Canadian Federation of Students – ­British Columbia Component. 2009 SCC 31, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 295, Sections [43] and [46]. “Halifax is keeping God off its buses.” CBC News. February 2, 2009. http://www.cbc.ca/ news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2009/02/02/ns-transit-god.html (accessed February 2, 2009). “Halifax says no to Atheist Bus Campaign slogan.” Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign – Official Website. February 3, 2009. http://atheistbus.ca/2009/02/03/halifax-says-noto-atheist-bus-campaign-slogan/ (accessed July 20, 2013). “Humanism says....” Humanist Canada. http://humanistcanada.ca/news/humanism -says. (accessed July 20, 2013). Hutchinson, Don. 2009. “It appears atheists are welcoming a discussion of religion in the public square. That’s really good news!” Christianity.ca. http://www.christianity. ca/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=6461 (accessed August 5. 2009). Kaufmann, Bill. March 24, 2009. “Atheists and believers faith off on buses.” Calgary Sun, http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/2009/03/24/8861831-sun.html (accessed March 24, 2009). Klaszus, Jeremy. February 5, 2009. “God speaks out on atheist bus ads,”Fast Forward Weekly. http://www.ffwdweekly.com/article/news-views/streeter/god-speaks-out -on-atheist-bus-ads-3271/ (accessed August 5, 2009). Lazaruk, Susan. April 2, 2011. “Atheist bus ads ‘pushback’ against ‘fundamentalist crazies’.” The Province. http://www.theprovince.com/life/Atheist+pushback+against+f undamentalist+crazies/4550239/story.html#ixzz1IVunkErD (accessed July 28, 2013). Mathieu, Emily. January 30, 2009. “Church ad builds on idea” The Toronto Star. http:// www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/579530 (accessed January 30, 2009). McKay, Sinclair. August 20, 2009. “Margaret Atwood: The Canadian novelist talks to Sinclair McKay about books and bees.” The Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ culture/books/6061404/­Margaret-Atwood.html (accessed October 23, 2013). McLeod, Paul. February 6. 2009. “Approved or not, atheist ads are achieving their goal.” Metro News. http://metronews.ca/news/153468/approved-or-not-atheist-ads-areachieving-their-goal/ (accessed, July 26, 2013).

CANADA: THE STATUS OF ATHEISM IN CANADA’S MULTICULTURAL MOSAIC

113

Moore, Charles W. July 15, 2009. “Atheist ad chases wrong bus: Science demonstrates that the ‘don’t worry, be happy’ lifestyle is in fact a blessing bestowed mostly on believers.” The Chronicle Herald. http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1132392.html (accessed July 15, 2009). “Most Canadians indifferent to atheist bus ads: poll.” Globe and Mail. March 25, 2009. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090325.waethist0325/ BNStory/National/home (accessed March 25, 2009). Nunn, Graham. 2009. “Designing the Atheist Bus Campaign.” In Ariane Sherine, There’s Probably No God: The Atheist’s Guide to Christmas. Great Britain: The Friday Project. 277–285. “Ottawa City Council to Rule on Atheist Bus Ads + Calgary Bus Ads Up and Running!” Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign – Official Website. March 10, 2009. http://atheistbus. ca/2009/03/10/ottawa-city-council-to-rule-on-atheist-bus-ads-calgary-bus-ads-up -and-running/ (accessed July 17, 2013). “Ottawa Next Stop on Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign.” Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign – Official Website. February 10, 2009. http://atheistbus.ca/2009/02/10/ ottawa-next-stop-on-canadian-atheist-bus-campaign/ (accessed July 25, 2013). Pynn, Larry. February 04, 2009. “TransLink faces a devil of a question.” Vancouver Sun. http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id= e944ef6c-b361-4f46-bd00-a8596300218f (accessed February 04, 2009). Rupert, Jake. February 18, 2009. “Council to decide whether OC Transpo should take proatheism ads.” The Ottawa Citizen. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Entertainment/ Council+decide+whether+Transpo+should+take+atheism/1303023/story.html (accessed February 18, 2009). R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., Supreme Court of Canada, April 24, 1985. Ryder, Bruce. 2008. “The Canadian Conception of Equal Religious Citizenship.” In Moon, Richard. Law and Religious Pluralism in Canada. Toronto: UBC Press. “The Daily – 2011 National Household Survey: Immigration, place of birth, citizenship, ethnic origin, visible minorities, language and religion.” Canada. May 8, 2013. http:// www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/130508/dq130508b-eng.htm (accessed June 4, 2013). Trottier, Justin and Payton, Michael. August 13, 2009. “Defending Atheist Bus Ads.” National Post. http://life.nationalpost.com/2009/08/13/justin-trottier-and-michaelpayton-defending-atheist-bus-ads/. Holy Post. (accessed August 13, 2009). Trottier, Justin. February 19, 2009. “Kicked Off the Bus; My Editorial is Published in the Ottawa Citizen.” Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign – Official Website. http://atheistbus .ca/2009/02/19/kicked-off-the-bus-my-editorial-is-pubished-in-the-ottawa-citizen/ #sthash.QKyugacb.dpuf (accessed July 25, 2013). “Vision, Mission, Values.” http://humanistcanada.ca/content/vision-mission-values. Humanist Canada (accessed July 20, 2013).

chapter 5

Croatia: Atheist Bus Campaign in Croatia; One Day Stand Dinka Marinović Jerolimov and Nikolina Hazdovac Bajić The Atheist campaign in Croatia was initiated by Ms. Bojana Genov, the coordinator of the Women’s Network in Croatia. The ad “No God, no master” was put on street car Nr. 14 in Zagreb, the capitol of Croatia, on March 5, 2009. After only one day the ad was removed, but the social response to this quite short campaign lasted for several months. In this chapter we first describe the historical, political and social context important for understanding and situating the campaign in Croatia. Secondly, we conduct an analysis of the legal and social responses to the campaign and conclude by summarizing the effects of the campaign in Croatia. 5.1

Historical, Political and Social Background

In order to understand the case, as well as the position of atheism in contemporary Croatian society, a brief introduction to the historical, political and social background is important. In developing and maintaining the collective identity of Croats, the Catholic Church has been an important element. The initial process of embracing Christianity, comprising the period from the 7th to 11th century, had been followed by a long history of gaining and losing state independence. For centuries Croatian territory had been a part of different empires: Hungarian, Hungarian-Austrian and Ottoman. After World War i Croatia became a part of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenians, which in 1929 became the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. During World War ii Croatia separated from the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (after the fall of the short-lived controversial Independent State of Croatia). In 1945 Croatia became part of new socialist Yugoslavia which, under the communist rule, lasted until 1991. After the fall of the Berlin Wall and during an introduction of political pluralism at the end of the 1980s, major social changes occurred, and these contributed to the process of the disintegration of socialist Yugoslavia. The decision of the Croatian Parliament to separate from Yugoslavia and to form an independent state was followed by the rebellion of local Serbs supported by Milošević’s regime in Serbia. The aggression of the Yugoslav Army started the war first in Croatia in 1991 and later in Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Kosovo. Through all these periods the strong © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004328532_006

Croatia: Atheist Bus Campaign; One Day Stand

115

connection between different national and religious identities in the region was present, Catholicism being the most prominent identification of Croats. Under communist rule in socialist Yugoslavia, religion and churches carried negative connotations, were confined to the private sphere, and did not have any prominent social impact. The institutionalized conformity patterns, nonreligiosity and atheism, were culturally transmitted through the public sphere, particularly through the educational system and media. The Communist Party officially treated religion as a retrogressive social force. As a consequence an ideological “struggle” against religion and churches was fought in different areas of social life, although with differing levels of intensity (conflict and cooperative phases) over time.1 Although the Constitution guaranteed religious rights and freedom, it defined religion as a private matter, thus making it publicly invisible and socially irrelevant. Yet, “as with many other social spheres, religions (covering here both the religious communities and religious people) lived in a double reality: one that guaranteed the religious freedom and autonomy of religious communities, and another that favored the nonreligious worldview.”2 Under communist rule religious people were more or less treated as second-class citizens. Despite the basic hostility of the state towards religion and the church, they both stayed present in people’s lives. They were widely spread in traditional forms across all segments of society. In the context of confessional differences Croatia was, together with Slovenia, the most religious (dominantly Catholic) part of former Yugoslavia.3 According to self-reported religiosity,4 the 1 2 3 4

1 Zrinščak, Siniša. “Religion and Society in Tension in Croatia: Social and Legal Status of Religious Communities.” In Regulating Religion. Case Studies from Around the Globe, edited by Jamet T. Richardson, 299–318. Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, 2004. 2 Zrinščak, Siniša, Dinka Marinović Jerolimov, Branko Ančić and Ankica Marinović. 2014. “Church and State in Croatia: Legal framework, religious instruction, and social expectations.” In Religion and Politics in Central and South-Eastern Europe: Challenges Since 1989, edited by Sabrina P. Ramet, 131–54. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. 3 Soon after being established by the University of Zagreb in 1964, the Institute for Social Research started to conduct, and continued ever since, empirical research of religiosity and nonreligiosity. Numerous researches in Zagreb region and on the national level show changes over time in this respect: for instance 86 percent of the population were declared ­Catholics in the Zagreb region in 1972, and 91 percent in 1999. At national level 70 percent of respondents declared themselves as Catholics in 1989, and 89 percent in 1996. The Census from 1991 shows 77 percent declared themselves as Catholics, and the Census from 2001 shows 87 percent declared themselves as Catholics, which confirmed this data (Črpić, Zrinščak, 2010; Marinović Jerolimov 1999, 2001, 2005; Zrinščak, Črpić, Kušar, 2000). 4 As an indicator of religious identification, a six-item scale has been used which presents a continuum from a convinced believer to the opponent of religion. It brought about a

116 Table 5.1

MARINOVIĆ JEROLIMOV AND HAZDOVAC BAJIĆ Religious self-identification in Zagreb and in Croatia

Religious identification

Convinced believer Religious Insecure Indifferent Not religious Opposed to religion

Zagreb

Croatia

1972 %

1982 %

1999 %

23 22 9 10 24 8

19 24 10 7 33 7

51 34 6 2 7 0

1984 1989 % % 10 25 12 11 35 7

14 27 11 11 35 2

1996 %

2004 %

36 37 8 6 12 1

40 38 7 6 8 1

Source: Surveys conducted by the Institute for Social Research – Zagreb in respective years.

data ­(table 5.1) from representative samples in Zagreb region, and data from national representative samples of the adult population over 18 years of age, show levels of religiosity and nonreligiosity in two different social and political contexts. Data clearly shows that: (1) over 40 percent of Croatian citizens, both in ­Zagreb region and on a national level, were religious during the time of socialist control; (2) bearing in mind even higher levels of confessional affiliation, it is obvious that among nonreligious persons there were also those who declared belonging to some (mostly Catholic) confession at that time; (3) after the fall of communism the level of religiosity increased considerably, while nonreligiosity decreased.5 5

d­ ifferentiation within religious respondents and within those who find themselves between religiosity and nonreligiosity and within nonreligious respondents. The question “If you were asked about your relationship to religion, where would you place yourself?”, allowed the respondents to choose from the following answers: 1. I am a convinced believer and I accept everything my religion teaches; 2. I am religious although I do not accept everything my religion teaches; 3. I think about this issue a lot but I am not certain whether I believe or not; 4. I am indifferent toward religion; 5. I am not religious but I don’t have nothing against religion; 6. I am not religious and I oppose religion. 5 According to the 2011 Census, there are 86.28 percent Catholics, 4.44 percent Orthodox, and 1.47 percent Muslims, slightly over 1 per cent members of other religious communities, 0.76 percent agnostics and sceptics, 3.81 percent nonreligious and atheists.

Croatia: Atheist Bus Campaign; One Day Stand

117

According to different research from that period, atheists and other nonreligious persons6 often had parents that belonged to some (mostly Catholic) confessions (50 to 85 percent of them); they had parents who taught them basic religious beliefs (between 30 to 60 percent of them); they even believed (6 percent) or declared they were not sure (25 percent) God exists; around 8 percent went to church occasionally and more than 25 percent regularly celebrated major religious holydays.7 According to the data, individuals who had two atheist parents usually identified as atheist, while those individuals who grew up in situations where one parent was atheist and another was religious often identified either as atheist or undecided. Nevertheless, the cultural embrace of Catholicism by Croatians had its effect even among nonreligious ­persons under communist rule. This also means that nonreligious and atheism (as well as religiosity) were not homogenous phenomena.8 The transitional context in Croatia, as well as in other post-communist countries, has been marked by the transformation of the institutional, industrial, economical, and cultural structures of society, followed by parallel processes of liberalization and democratization as preconditions of political and social changes. Within the process of socio-cultural changes religion has occupied an important place. Despite the differences, Croatia shares some common features of religious changes with most post-communist Central and Eastern European countries: interconnection between religion and nation; interconnection between religion and politics;9 aspiration of churches to 6 7 8 9

6 Following Campbell (1971), nonreligious is understood as broader concept which includes atheism and other forms and attitudes towards religion, including hostility, indifference, or rejection. 7 Marinović Jerolimov, 1993. 8 In the context of this chapter atheists are people who do not believe in God. It is beyond the scope and the theme here to discuss the theoretical and empirical framework important for defining nonreligiosity and atheism, different types of religious ‘Nones’ or processes of forming irreligious or atheistic identity, which can be found in some older and recent scholarly work, for instance in Bullivant and Lee 2012, Hadaway and Roof 1979, LeDrew 2013, Smith 2011, Stark 1999, Vernon 1968, and Zuckerman 2011. Although one of the first researches from the socialist period indicated different types of atheists emotive atheist, rational atheist, and pseudo-atheist – who is in fact a believer, but for different socio-psychological reasons, either conformism or defiance, Ćimić 1966, and respective comparative research (Marinović ­Jerolimov 1993), there were no further specific empirical research on atheism and irreligiosity. Campbell (1971:8–11) surprisingly pointed to this fact within Marxist sociological tradition in socialist societies, referring to similar neglect in capitalist societies with different position of atheists and different sociological approaches and traditions. 9 Michel, 1999; Robertson, 1989.

118

MARINOVIĆ JEROLIMOV AND HAZDOVAC BAJIĆ

r­ estore their positions of the pre-communist period; increase in the number of new religious movements, and the phenomenon of revitalization of religion in general.10 The ­revitalization of religion in Croatia did not manifest a rise of the so-called r­eligion à la carte but occurred more within the framework of re-­traditionalisation, re-totalisation, and re-collectivisation.11 Shaped predominantly by the leading right wing nationalistic party Croatian Democratic Union (Hrvatska demokratska zajednica – hdz) at the beginning of the 1990s, the major framework of these changes was the openness of leading social and political structures toward religion and church which especially affected the regulation of religion. Additionally, the actions of churches in the pre-war, war and post-war periods included national and religious homogenisation. Especially important was the role of Pope John Paul ii and the Holy See in international recognition of the independence of the Republic of Croatia. All these factors resulted in the change of the position and the role of religion and churches in Croatian society. Religion and churches entered the public sphere in order to participate in defining relationships on all levels of society and in different areas such as public life, the media, the educational system, etc. The change of their position after 1990 has been followed by a considerable increase in declared religiosity.12 The strong identification with religion and the church became almost complete in the population, which places Croatia among the countries with the highest level of religiosity in Europe, behind ­Poland, Romania, Malta, Portugal, Italy, and Ireland.13 Despite the overall revitalisation, an increased religiosity is not a homogenous phenomenon. Besides its overall collectivistic character, in terms of belonging to a religious community defined or shaped by birth in a specific territory,14 in some aspects it is both institutionalised and privatised. For instance, along with high levels of confessional and religious identification, religious socialisation in the family, belief in God and regular church attendance, there is parallel acceptance of alternative beliefs, or deviation in acceptance of Catholic moral norms concerning sexuality and marriage15 which points to the range of diffused secularity at the level of values. 10 11 12 13 14 15

10 11 12 13 14 15

Borowik, Babinski eds., 1997; Tomka, 1995. Vrcan, 1999. Marinović Jerolimov, 1999, 2001, 2005; Vrcan, 2001; Zrinščak et al., 2000. Davie, 2000, Zrinščak, et al., 2000. Jakelić, 2010. Marinović Jerolimov, 2006, Marinović Jerolimov and Ančić, 2014, Nikodem and Zrin­ ščak, 2012, Zrinščak, 2011. It should be taken into account that both in communist and

Croatia: Atheist Bus Campaign; One Day Stand

119

On the more general level, it can be said that socialist Croatian society was marked by socialist modernisation (which included planned industrialisation, urbanisation, an increase in education, women’s employment, and atheism) and secularisation, i.e. secularism,16 while post-socialist Croatia is marked by processes of desecularisation17 and deprivatisation.18 This represents a shift in symbolic (cultural) meaning that is happening within historically specific relations between religious/secular and political power.19 For the purposes of this chapter, several facts are important, reflecting the social position of the dominant Catholic Church in the new democratic social and political system. There is no doubt that its position is somewhat privileged in relation to other religious communities. After introducing Catholic confessional instruction to all public schools in Croatia in 1992, and later in kindergartens as well, the state signed four agreements with the Holy See in 1996 and 1998 regarding legal issues, economic issues, cooperation in the fields of education and culture and on spiritual care in military and police forces. Almost all of these agreements were criticised for being unconstitutional in one way or another, questioned as to whether or not they respected the constitutional foundation of the state’s autonomy, or whether or not Croatia (with these agreements) violated the constitutional principle of equality for all religious communities before the law.20 The Law on the Legal Status of Religious Communities passed in 2002 which extended rights to other religious communities, but not entirely. It also differentiated between already present religious communities which had a simple (formal) registration process and the new ones that, in order to be registered, had to provide proof that their respective community held at least 500 members and had been registered as an association of citizens for at least 5 years prior the registration as a religious community. The new criteria for registration were passed in December 2004, 16 17 18 19 20

16 17 18 19 20

post-communist times a part of nonreligious and respectively religious citizens declared their (non)religiousness according to the leading conformist pattern, and not as their true beliefs or attitudes. Secularism as an ideology according to Wilson, 1987. Berger, 1999. Casanova, 1994. Burchrdt and Wohlrab-Sahr, 2014. Years after that 15 other religious communities had the chance to conclude similar agreements, but not with exactly the same rights as the Catholic Church.

120

MARINOVIĆ JEROLIMOV AND HAZDOVAC BAJIĆ

which additionally formed the hierarchy of religious communities in Croatia, with the Catholic Church being at the top.21,22 Besides that, an important issue is the overall public discourse of the representatives of the Catholic Church. The narratives of church elite mostly revolve around the connection between the national and religious (“God and Croats”). Anti-communism discourse is also common place in their narratives, reflecting their reaction to, and rejection of, the legacy of communism. There is a constant criticism ­operating in the background of these narratives over the imposition and overarching nature of communist atheism. After Ivo Josipović, President of the ­Republic of Croatia, publicly declared himself as agnostic, a well-known ­Catholic theologian gave a long interview criticising the notion that an agnostic person could be the president of an almost completely Catholic population. So, it could be said that in new social and political circumstances, by forcing religiosity through the system and by hierarchising religious ­communities through regulating religion, the state put the nonreligious (and non-Catholic) citizens in unequal positions. Now, the nonreligious became the second-class citizens (although this cannot be perceived in terms of systematic oppression). This was confirmed by the research conducted among parents of nonreligious pupils that do not attend religious instruction class in public schools, who claimed that their children were discriminated against either by other children, or by the overall social climate in society and at schools that favoured religiosity.23 5.2 Methodology Different methods were used in this study: analysis of articles in newspapers and magazines dealing with the subject matter related to the events surrounding the Atheist Bus Campaign, articles in online magazines and portals with the same theme, and websites of associations that were participants in the events (Coalition for Secularism and Protagora). Television shows that contained reports on this topic were also included in the analysis. In addition semi-structured interviews with some of the participants and commentators 21 22 23

21 22

23

Marinović and Marinović Jerolimov, 2012. This governmental act called Conclusion resulted in 2007 with a law-suit of three Protestant religious communities against the Republic of Croatia at International Court for Human Rights in Strasbourg due to discrimination. In 2010 they won the case. Ančić, Puhovski, 2011.

Croatia: Atheist Bus Campaign; One Day Stand

121

of the events were held, during which an overview of the documentation related to the case was gained. 5.3

Atheist Bus Campaign in Croatia – A Chronology

The Atheist Bus Campaign, which was first launched in the uk in March 2008, had its echo in Croatia along with many other countries around the world. The Women’s Network Association (Udruga Ženska mreža), one of the members of the Coalition for Secularism in Croatia, agreed with the town carrier in Z ­ agreb (Zagreb Electric Tram or zet) to put the ads on one of its city trams for a period of one month. The Women’s Network Association paid the agreed sum of 11.000 Croatian Kunas24 in advance on March 3, 2009. On the side of tram number 14 the message “No God, no master” was put up, but only for a day. On March 5, the tram was withdrawn from city traffic, and money paid for the ad was refunded to the account of Women’s Network. These events caused a massive stir in the media and in the public became divided over the question of whether selected adverts offended religious f­ eelings or whether the act of withdrawing the ad represented unacceptable censorship and violation of freedom of speech. Skirmishing between zet and Coalition for Secularism took place over the media. zet claimed they were not aware of the controversy of the message itself, but after a number of negative reactions from citizens, who supposedly called them, they had realized their decision to allow the ad was wrong. zet spokesman Tomislav Jurić issued a statement in which he claimed that the message with this content, especially during Lent, can be interpreted as a direct offence of moral or religious feelings of our fellow citizens.25 For the money paid they offered Woman’s Network to put up a different message. The coordinator of the Women’s Network, Bojana Genov, said that if the ad is not going to be published with the identical ­message they 24 25

24

25

There were later in the public questions over who paid for costs of the campaign (although the sum in question does not represent a significant amount of money) and Bojana Genov, coordinator of the Women’s Network, said that the entire amount was financed by private donations, i.e. by “means which remained to citizens after paying all taxes and duties” (Genov, Bojana. „Financiranje Crkve – materija ispred duha.“Zamirzine, April 1, 2009. http://www.sekularizam.org/financiranje-crkve-materija -ispred-duha.html (accessed April 16, 2014)). “Tužba jer zet neće oglas ‘Bez Boga, bez gospodara’.” Večernji list, March 13, 2009. http:// www.vecernji.hr/zg-vijesti/tuzba-jer-zet-nece-oglas-bez-boga-bez-gospodara-864841 (accessed April 10, 2014).

122

MARINOVIĆ JEROLIMOV AND HAZDOVAC BAJIĆ

will sue zet for human rights violations.26 She argued that the message did not offend anyone, but only showed the ability of the Croatian public to accept the views and opinions of those who are different. zet claimed that there is no reason for a lawsuit because, even though the money was paid, the contract was never signed, and so they had no obligation to the advertiser. The answer from the Women’s Network was that they do not dispute that the contract had not been concluded: “The contract at the end did not come to us, but its number was clearly indicated on the invoice. We’ll prove it in court.”27 Another reason for withdrawal of the advert, according to zet, was the fact that it wasn’t signed so it could be concluded that the atheistic message actually expressed the stance of zet itself. Coalition for Secularism offered to put its signature under the message, but zet didn’t respond. Woman’s Network in its official reaction to the event contacted the Office for Human Rights, the Parliamentary Committee for Human Rights, Stjepan Mesić (president of the Republic of Croatia at the time) and Milan Bandić (mayor of Zagreb), but none of them has commented on the issue. “So we can talk about censorship and discrimination, and ultimately human rights abuse of atheists,” concluded Genov.28 After these events and the numerous reactions which they caused, as well as the notion that zet was likely to lose a court battle with the Coalition for Secularism over the issue, their representatives agreed to discuss the problem with the advertiser. At this stage of development the following instance in the hierarchy, i.e. Zagreb Holding (a company owned by the city which gathers communal services, energy related activities, traffic and market activities and sport and recreation) was included. Several meetings were held, and Zagreb Holding spokesman Dušan Viro confirmed for the media that they were working actively on finding compromise in order to avoid announced lawsuits. However, he never confirmed Genov’s statements that they reached verbal agreement according to which the controversial message (this time signed by the Coalition for Secularism) should be put up on three trams in Zagreb in September when the season of holidays was over. Genov said: “It is true that we negotiate, but so far we only have a verbal confirmation from zet. I hope that on September 26 27 28

26 Ibid. 27 “Zagreb: zet zaštitio Svevišnjega od Ženske grupe.” Slobodna Dalmacija, March 9, 2009. http://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr/Hrvatska/tabid/66/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/ 45360/Default.aspx (accessed April 10, 2014). 28 “Život bez Boga i vraga u katoličkoj Hrvatskoj.” Nacional, March 24, 2009. http://www .nacional.hr/clanak/55298/zivot-bez-boga-i-vraga-u-katolickoj-hrvatskoj (accessed April 10, 2014).

Croatia: Atheist Bus Campaign; One Day Stand

123

the 3rd the agreement could be signed.”29 When asked what happened in the meantime that caused city carrier to change its mind, she answered that initiators hired an attorney who showed them [zet] “a bit of the Constitution.”30 After these indications that the agreement would be reached and Atheist Bus Campaign re-launched, media interest gradually decreased and eventually disappeared. However, the campaign was never launched again and there was no further news about an announced lawsuit towards zet. So the case soon was forgotten in Croatian public life. In the interview with us Bojana Genov pointed out that she gained the impetus for the bus ad by following media which were reporting on Atheist Bus Campaigns in the uk and other European countries. As a coordinator of the Women’s Network Association (which in its program also had a secular platform) she proposed to create a similar campaign in Croatia in order to mark the International Women’s Day. She suggested the slogan “No God, no master,” but other members of the association rejected the idea and decided to mark International Women’s Day in a different way, with a different message. However, Genov persisted in her plan and with the help of one colleague decided to conduct an Atheist Bus Campaign with her original slogan. They also addressed some other organizations, including the most prominent nonreligious Croatian association Protagora which promotes an irreligious ­worldview and deals with the protection of the rights of irreligious people. Regarding the organization of this cooperation, Genov stated: “We told them what we plan to do, but neither Protagora was impressed to rush with something like this. […] No, no one was thrilled with it. However, what I basically wanted was for my parent organization to support me.” They supported her later, when the events geared up, public debate increased, and Genov appeared in the media as the coordinator of the Women’s Network. Before that, the Women’s network rejected any participation in this type of campaign. 5.4

About the Slogan

“No God, no master” is an anarchist, libertarian and feminist slogan, borrowed from the French socialists and political activist Auguste Blanqui.31 The phrase 29 30 31

29

“Bezbožni tramvaji od rujna u metropoli.” Slobodna Dalmacija, August 24, 2009. http://www .slobodnadalmacija.hr/Auto-moto/tabid/90/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/67181/ Default.aspx (accessed April 11, 2014). 30 Ibid. 31 In original “Ni Dieu, ni matter.”

124

MARINOVIĆ JEROLIMOV AND HAZDOVAC BAJIĆ

was used in French, English and Russian anarchist circles in the second half of the 19th century. Later it was used among feminist thinkers. By using it Margaret Sanger referred to the freedom of women to be the mistress of their own bodies in a 1914 feminist’s pamphlet in which she advocated the use of contraception according to a woman’s preference. Bojana Genov said that the message proclaims the need for personal freedom, without imposed authority, and sets up a man and human liberty as a fundamental criterion.32 Anna-Maria Gruenfelder, respected historian and theologian, pointed out that the date just a few days before the International Women’s Day, when the tram carrying an atheistic message was first released, was chosen with the aim of pointing to the lack of tolerance towards minorities in Croatian society (not only towards atheists), but also towards women. I could imagine that the initiators had in mind that an element of discrimination against women is precisely the Church, Catholic Church, although there is discrimination against women in all Christian religious communities and non- Christian religions.33 In this way Gruenfelder offered another possible dimension to the whole event. In the short review of the events and contemplation about the message itself, columnist reader for Jutarnji list (as he signed himself), Dini Jakušić states similar thoughts: “Message on the tram probably rejects a husband as a lord of the woman and the traditional ‘God’ patriarchy rather than to controvert around God’s existence or equated the two.”34 Those who claimed that the message is formed in a way that offends religious feelings pointed out that it distorts religious facts because “Gospel constantly repeats the words of Christ that he did not come to be the master, but to serve”35 and that the slogan thus worded shows clear ignorance of religious 32 33 34 35

32 33

34

35

Genov, Bojana. “Tramvaj koji je ukinuo sekularizam.” Zamirzine, March 10, 2009. http:// www.sekularizam.org/tramvaj-koji-je-ukinuo-sekularizam.html (accessed April 17, 2014). Gruenfelder, Anna Maria. “Katolici i ateisti: Tko koga diskriminira?” Križ života, March 18, 2009. http://www.sekularizam.org/katolici-i-ateisti-tko-koga-diskriminira.html (accessed April 10, 2014). Jakušić, Dini. “Razloga za povrijeđene vjerske osjećaje nema.” Jutarnji list, March 18, 2009. http://www.sekularizam.org/razloga-za-povrijedjene-vjerske-osjecaje-nema.html (accessed April 14, 2014). Živko Kustić, Greek Catholic priest, stated for the newspapers (“Ateisti ogorčeni: zet guši slobodu govora.” Jutarnji list, March 11, 2009. http://www.jutarnji.hr/ateisti-ogorceni--zet -gusi-slobodu-govora/197757/ (accessed April 22, 2014)).

Croatia: Atheist Bus Campaign; One Day Stand

125

doctrine “according to which Christians are not slaves of God the lord, but God’s children.”36 Yet, Genov in her interview repeats her stance “God is the master in the Scriptures and that is indisputable. Anyway, what is Dominus than the master?”37 Darko Milošić, columnist and blogger, thinks that the behavior of atheists and their way of communicating are actually a reflection or mirror image of the way religious communities (especially the Catholic Church) in Croatia communicates (harshly and without a refined approach and respect for others) so he finds the chosen slogan to be “unfunny, pretentious, pathetic, evocative, raw, in a word the slogan failed (the irony is that it actually implies that God exists, but he is not recognized as the master!),”38 and at the end indeed offensive toward the believers. In an interview Genov said: To me this old anarchist slogan seemed to be also feminist enough, but its primarily atheistic message. … Since there was no brainstorming about it or some broad support … When ten people sit down and really think, usually they come to some solution, but as there were just the two of us, first slogan that got stuck with us, it was left. We had no support from anyone. In an interview Anna Maria Gruenfelder offered an elaborated explanation of the slogan in question. She thinks that the slogan refers to the Enlightenment and the Marxist critique of religion. A whole range of thinkers, from Kant, through Engels, Feuerbach, Freud and Nietzsche criticized religion that enslaves with its dogmas. She argues that there is constant temptation to manipulate humanity in every religion because they need it in order to maintain their own authority and their survival. Her conclusion is that the slogan ‘No God, no master’ should be realized “as involvement in contribution and in favor to a man with individual responsibility and self-conscious, who listens to the voice of his own mind and refuses to serve as a faithful servant of others, even if it 36 37 38

36

37

38

Šarac, Damir. “Tragom zagrebačkog slučaja: Ateisti kao bogovi.” Slobodna Dalmacija, March 11, 2009. http://209.59.234.145/Hrvatska/tabid/66/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/45578/ Default.aspx (accessed May 5, 2014). Protagora issued Notice regarding the ads on zet’s tram (Priopćenje povodom akcije oglasa na ZET-ovom tramvaju) in which they mention a number of quotations from the Bible which support the view of God as the master (Protagora. “Priopćenje povodom akcije oglasa na ZET-ovom tramvaju.” http://www.protagora.hr/Clanak/Priopcenje-povodom -akcije-oglasa-na-ZET-ovom-tramvaju/56/#sthash.E64F9F7e.dpuf (accessed May 24, 2014)). Milošić, Darko. “O biskupu Pozaiću, akciji i reakciji.” Večernji list, January 1, 2013. http:// blog.vecernji.hr/darko-milosic/2013/01/14/o-biskupu-pozaicu-akciji-i-reakciji/ (accessed May 5, 2014).

126

MARINOVIĆ JEROLIMOV AND HAZDOVAC BAJIĆ

were the religious authorities.” In this sense ‘No God, no master’ is a well-­chosen slogan which provokes us to rethink our own religious beliefs and the nature of the God we believe in, whether that is “God that we’ve invented because we projected our fears and our expectations on the supernatural world, rather than to shape the natural world by true measure of the man.” ­Gruenfelder suggests that “no God” does not mean that there is or will be “no master” because self-proclaimed masters on earth can be found among all tyrants and dictators who oppress others, calling on God-given authority. This also points to the feminist rejection of God (especially the God of the three Abrahamic religions) who transfers his authority to the husbands and fathers giving them power over women and children and the possibility of unequal treatment of sons and daughters. It is also in line with Simone de Beauvoir’s seminal book The Second Sex (Le Deuxieme Sexe) where she argued that “For the Jews, Mohammedans, and Christians, among others, man is master by divine right; the fear of God, therefore, will repress any impulse towards revolt in the downtrodden female. One can bank on her credulity. Woman take an attitude of respect and faith towards the masculine universe.”39 Since the chosen slogan so well combined both an atheistic and feminist stance, Genov concluded: I still extremely like that slogan though probably it was the fiercest considering such a dogmatic public. It was certainly the most problematic it could be. But anyway, when you do something like that, you won’t do lemonade, right? It is a question of either-or. We needed something really provocative. 5.5

Legal Response

Freedom of thought and expression are guaranteed by the Croatian Constitution. Freedom of expression includes the freedom of the press and other media of communication, freedom of speech and public expression, and free establishment of all institutions of public communication (Article 38). Also, freedom of conscience and denomination, as well as freedom to manifest religion or other beliefs is guaranteed (Article 40) and all religious communities are equal before the law and separate from the state (Article 41). Atheist Bus Campaign initiators in Croatia claimed that according to the Articles 38 and 40 of the Constitution they have the right to publicly express their beliefs. On the other hand, their opponents claimed that they have violated Article 39 39

39

Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 1956, 589.

Croatia: Atheist Bus Campaign; One Day Stand

127

of the Constitution according to which any reference or incitement to war or violence, national, racial or religious hatred or any form of intolerance is prohibited and punishable. They argued that the chosen slogan was encouraging intolerance toward believers and devaluing their beliefs. Genov said in the television appearance: This is not an anti-religious statement, but un-religious. It says: ‘I have no God’. The debate should not be over the fact whether this slogan is smart, good, or whatever, but only about whether Croatian citizens who claim it, have the right to publicly declare it.40 In an interview with a newspaper she added that she didn’t want to offend anybody and that their goal was to ensure that freedom of thought can be expressed in the public space, especially by marginal groups such as atheists.41 Genov claimed in her appearances that zet violated the rules of business and, although no contract has been signed between them and the carrier, the contractual relationship began the moment when zet gave them the offer, accepted material for printing and issued an invoice. zet’s spokesman Tomislav Jurić, on the other hand claimed that there was no bad business cooperation because “there weren’t any contractual obligations nor were they defined in any manner.” In his statement he reduced the business relation between the advertiser and zet to a demand and supply. Jurić concluded that zet, from the legal point of view, did not in any way take any obligation to advertise or to put up their message.42 However, Igor Kern, court expert in marketing, confirmed Genov’s point of view by explaining that the moment when the client accepts and pays for a specific offer and receives an invoice from the advertiser all the preliminary activities have already been done (which includes earlier delivery of the message in order to be reviewed on time). According to him, when media publication of the message starts, then work can be considered concluded.43 Igor Kern also said that if the zet had doubts about the content of the ad, they should consult a Code of Advertising and the authorities who deal with it. Taking all of the above into consideration, the question arises why there was  no lawsuit as the advertiser had a strong legal basis for winning the court case. Genov said in the interview that her lawyer advised her that in order to 40 41 42 43

40 41

Television show Proces, broadcasted on March 27, 2009. “Kaćunka jako vesele ‘bezbožnički’ natpisi.” Večernji list, August 19, 2009. http://www .sekularizam.org/vecernji-list-kacunka-jako-vesele-bezboznicki-natpisi.html (accessed June 6, 2014). 42 Television show Proces, broadcasted on March 27, 2009. 43 Ibid.

128

MARINOVIĆ JEROLIMOV AND HAZDOVAC BAJIĆ

facilitate litigation they should try to show that the campaign was predominantly feministic and not atheistic. She resolutely refused that suggestion because in her opinion the message was primarily atheistic and she did not want to deal with reinterpreting its content to downplay the atheistic message, which she felt must have an equal opportunity and the right to appear in public space. Since not even her lawyer (with whom she trusted and worked previously) understood her, she decided to give up. It’s a very powerful message. And what if I draw five women around it? I mean what is it then? It’s something else. So I decided it was better to suffer a defeat rather than win by changing the message. After all, the objective was fully achieved. The public was fully sensitized, they all divided, they all discussed it, and for months it was written about. No issue in the public space was as discussed for six months. Not a single one! 5.6

Social Response

The stir in the Croatian public and media space that was created after the withdrawal of the atheistic message indicates that the issues of expressing religious feelings which are not in accordance with the dominant Catholic majority are extremely sensitive because of the role which religion and religious belonging (or not belonging) had throughout Croatian history. Atheism and irreligiousness in the aftermath of the nineties are relatively unpopular positions and the general public most often negatively perceives events and occurrences related to the attempts to highlight or promote such attitudes. The low level of political maturity and tolerance in society often leads to intensification of conflicts and lowering the level of communication. Having in mind the historical context, politicians and other public figures are not overly prone to commenting in such situations because they are often exposed to labeling, judgment and criticism. Genov said in the interview that this issue was a “potato so hot that no one wanted to have anything to do with it.” None of the institutions which she as the advertiser reached out to (Office for Human Rights, the Parliamentary Committee for Human Rights, Stjepan Mesić – president of the country at the time, Milan Bandić – mayor of Zagreb) gave any answer, except the Office of the President which in a scanty response said that they had no jurisdiction over this matter.44 44

44

The official response from the President’s Office was sent on April 27, 2009. The full text of that response was:

Croatia: Atheist Bus Campaign; One Day Stand

129

Few politicians unofficially commented on the issue, stating personal views. Šime Lučin (former Social Democratic Minister of Internal Affairs, and representative of the opposition party at the time) said that the rights of atheists and agnostics are definitely compromised in Croatia. He argued that it is sad that Croatian society is constantly going through extremes, first in socialism the rights of believers were violated, and then in the 90s everybody who was not on the “right” national – religious line was marginalized. He concluded by stating: “I was hoping that this pressure will loosen in the 21st century, but it did not happen.”45 Vesna Pusić,46 one of the leaders of Croatian People’s Party (Hrvatska narodna stranka), also opposition representative at the time, said: After removing the poster we can see the extent to which this campaign was well- chosen. The constitutional right to freely express one’s own point of view is extremely important, and this is especially true in the case of the minorities.47 Another opposition representative, Ingrid Antičević Marinović, former Social Democratic Minister of Justice, said that the action of the Women’s Network was unacceptable because with these slogans they “go with new faith against another religion.” But she also condemned any call for atheists to convert because “it brings us back to the pre-Council era.”48 For Emil Tomljanović, 45 46 47 48



45

46 47 48

Dear Mrs. Genov, The Office of the Croatian President, the Department for petitions, complaints and parole received your petition which you have addressed to Mr. President Stjepan Mesić in connection with the right to freedom of expression, and the selection of messages in the public sphere with regard to religious affiliation. Your petition has been carefully reviewed and duly noted. We are obliged to inform you that the President of the Republic, as well as the Office of the President, are not competent to act competently in solving this problem. As you know, the President is constantly committed to freedom of expression and tolerance in public communication. “Život bez Boga i vraga u katoličkoj Hrvatskoj.” Nacional, March 24, 2009. http://www .nacional.hr/clanak/55298/zivot-bez-boga-i-vraga-u-katolickoj-hrvatskoj (accessed April 10, 2014). Pusić is the Minister of Foreign Affairs and European Integrations in the current Croatian government. “Ateisti ogorčeni: zet guši slobodu govora.” Jutarnji list, March 11, 2009. http://www .jutarnji.hr/ateisti-ogorceni--zet-gusi-slobodu-govora/197757/ (accessed April 22, 2014). “Don Kaćunko: Božje je kraljevstvo otvoreno i ateistima.” Slobodna Dalmacija, April 16, 2009. http://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr/Hrvatska/tabid/66/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/ 50744/Default.aspx (accessed April 14, 2014).

130

MARINOVIĆ JEROLIMOV AND HAZDOVAC BAJIĆ

member of the ruling Croatian Democratic Union (Hrvatska demokratska ­zajednica) everyone has the right to express his or her opinion but it has to be within the limits of tolerance and respect for freedom of others.49 Marijana Petir, representative of the Croatian Peasant Party (Hrvatska seljačka stranka), which was member of the ruling coalition at the time, said that “some minority groups are taking up too much space to offend the majority.”50 From these few informal comments it can be seen how the politicians were providing opinions according to expected form, depending on their ideological party affiliation. Anna Maria Gruenfelder pointed out in her interview that it was good that political structures, as well as representatives of the government have not officially declared about these events because they belong to the domain of culture, not politics. She also believes that the ruling structure at the time (conservative right wing) “stood alongside the Church and thus betrayed its duty to be ideologically neutral.” The Catholic Church in Croatia has not reacted to the events officially. However, some of the priests shared their opinions with the media. Živko Kustić, prominent Croatian Greek Catholic priest, theologian and columnist, believes that the slogan “No God, no master” does not express an atheistic stance, but defies religion. He pointed out that the solution is not in prohibiting such slogans but rather in an attempt to clarify the faith.51 Catholic priest Anton Šuljić said that the attempt to express one’s own attitude on a public transport vehicle with the banner “No God, no master” probably shows frustration with faith, God, the Church or the believers. He stated that beside the point that there is the right to express such a position publicly, the fact is that by doing so somebody’s religious feelings are being offended. “And religious freedoms fall under human rights. Nobody has the right to insult other people’s feelings, in this case religious feelings, so we should consider this ad as a bad and unoriginal attempt to publicly express somebody’s own opinion.”52 Anđelko Kaćunko, a Catholic priest who was at the time quite popular in the media and often unconventional in his appearances considered that this campaign was “provocation that reminded him of a gay-pride.”53 In the Catholic Church 49 50 51 52 53

49 Ibid. 50 Ibid. 51 “Ateisti ogorčeni: zet guši slobodu govora.” Jutarnji list, March 11, 2009. http://www .jutarnji.hr/ateisti-ogorceni--zet-gusi-slobodu-govora/197757/ (accessed April 22, 2014). 52 Ibid. 53 “Don Kaćunko: Božje je kraljevstvo otvoreno i ateistima.” Slobodna Dalmacija, April 16, 2009. http://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr/Hrvatska/tabid/66/­articleType/ArticleView/articleId/50744/Default.aspx (accessed April 14, 2014).

Croatia: Atheist Bus Campaign; One Day Stand

131

newspaper The Voice of the Council (Glas Koncila), we found the sole church comment on the Atheist Bus Campaign in Croatia, in the form of the answer to the following reader’s question: “Recently atheists in Zagreb came up with the idea to speak out against God by provocative advertising signs on public transportation. What does the Church teach and think about atheism and atheists?” The newspaper published the text under the title “What is the attitude of the Church towards atheists?” After interpretation of atheism that has been transferred from the constitution Gaudium et Spes (no. 19–21) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (no. 2123 and following), there was comment on the current events: “As for the atheist initiatives in Zagreb, we agree with you that this is a deliberate provocation in order to once again present religion, especially Catholic, as ‘intolerant’.” They also pointed out that they did not know ahead of time the advertiser’s plan, (nor the later procedures of zet), but they agree with the town carrier “which – completely logically – refused their request, not wanting to offend the believers who in no way offend atheists.”54 When asked her opinion about the fact that the official church structures did not comment on the events, Genov said they did not have to because: They are too strong; they have their impassioned spokespersons that are ready to yell, to throw themselves on the swords. Church didn’t have to do anything, didn’t have to dirty their hands. And their spokesmen only stubbornly repeated: ‘We are offended’. What offended them, I don’t know. Gruenfelder concluded from the clergy’s reactions that they constantly differentiated between the unbelievers out of indifference and those who base their atheism on defiance (toward religion and/or Church). In that division the former were in a sense accepted, and the latter were not because their atheism is “wrong.” Gruenfelder criticized this stance because priests should “in the spirit of the Council’s Constitution on Religious Freedom ‘Dignitatis Humanae’ – respect everyone’s right to freedom of belief or unbelief.”55 According to her, this message provoked the clergy and the citizens because it stimulated them to reflect on their unconscious attitudes, behavior and everyday life “which could bear the motto: ‘Let’s say there is a God’ (more often however: ‘Let’s say 54 55

54 55

“Kakav je stav Crkve prema ateistima?” Glas Koncila, April 19, 2009. Anna Maria Gruenfelder, “Katolici i ateisti: Tko koga diskriminira?” Križ života, March 18, 2009. http://www.sekularizam.org/katolici-i-ateisti-tko-koga-diskriminira.html (accessed April 10, 2014).

132

MARINOVIĆ JEROLIMOV AND HAZDOVAC BAJIĆ

that God does not exist!’) or ‘I believe that God exists – just in case, you never know’.”56 Since in Croatian society ideological divisions are still so strong, any deviation from the point of view of the ‘side’ an individual belongs to, is not commonplace.57 People who declare themselves as atheists or irreligious, generally consider that the Church and religion have too much influence in Croatian society. An example of such thinking can be found in the Statement of the Management Board of Protagora regarding the action of Women’s Network.58 In their statement they pointed out that beside the fact that by the Constitution Croatia is a secular state, in everyday life it appears religious. In all public institutions crucifixes are set up advertising only one religion, church bells create more noise than is legally permitted, public television transmits Mass and religious ceremonies, in schools and kindergartens Catholicism is being promoted in the religious instruction classes, public facilities are opened with blessings, funds are rewarded for the Church from the state budget, and so on. On the other hand “when one day a small women’s organization dared to use its constitutional right (Article 40 and 41) and under the same conditions as all lease advertising space on metropolitan modes of public transportation, in order to send a legitimate and legal message: ‘No God, no master’, single-minded censorship resolutely protected the ideological monopoly.”59 Irreligious and atheist persons and organizations are constantly trying to indicate that a sizable majority of self-identified Catholic believers are not true believers and that their stance is hypocritical and created out of conformity.60 56 57 58 59 60

56 Ibid. 57 However, it should be noted that among different comments of Atheist Bus Campaign in Croatia handful of such cases could be found (http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/54850/ apel-vjernika-molim-zet-da-vrati-ateisticke-plakate (accessed June 5, 2014)); http://www .sekularizam.org/studentski-magazin-gdje-pocinje-a-gdje-prestaje-sloboda.html (acessed April 15, 2014); http://blog.vecernji.hr/darko-milosic/2013/01/14/o-biskupu -pozaicu-akciji-i-reakciji/ (accessed May 5, 2014). 58 Protagora. “Priopćenje povodom akcije oglasa na ZET-ovom tramvaju.”http://www.protagora .hr/Clanak/Priopcenje-povodom-akcije-oglasa-na-ZET-ovom-tramvaju/56/#sthash.E64F 9F7e.dpuf (accessed May 24, 2014). 59 Ibid. 60 According to researches there are high differences within the religious structure with regard to the religious participation and presence of religious practices. Data show that there were 25 to 30 percent of convinced believers who express acceptance of religious truths, regularly go to Mass and pray. Other part of religious group is made of believers who do not accept everything their religion teaches, do not pray as often and go to Mass

Croatia: Atheist Bus Campaign; One Day Stand

133

Gruenfelder in her interview commented that the campaigns such as the Atheist Bus Campaign are important because they are a reminder that atheists are part of the society and that they have the right to exist, too. However, even with this omnipresent religious occurrence in the public, she finds that Croatian society is “essentially atheistic given that in everyday life Christian faith and Christianity as a belief and religion don’t have an important role. Everyday life is dominated by atheism, not militant, conscious and argumentatively versed atheism, but one that stems from indifference to religion.” The Atheist Bus Campaign in Croatia showed in her opinion that “it is not suitable to apodictically claim ‘There is no God’ in public, but one still lives as if He does not exist.” On the other hand, large numbers of religious persons and members of the clergy, at any attempt of criticism or expressing a different point of view, bring back rhetoric which takes them back to the time of socialism, recalling the collective memory of that period when they were oppressed. They also point out that the minority groups do not have the right to offend a majority and they feel actions like this one encourage intolerance toward believers and the Catholic Church. One of the commentators said that one of the main principles of the secular and modern society (which Croatia wants to be), is not to offend the citizens on the religious, national, racial, sexual, social, political, and any other basis and still “atheists think that the believers have no right to object inscriptions for which they estimate are promoting intolerance; even more, that majority of believers buys, drives and pays the maintenance of trams and buses with anti-religion witty remarks?”61 Others are suspicious regarding the financiers and the motives behind this campaign which came to us from the West as “probably a very ‘modern and trendy’ thing, same as the promotion of gay marriages, secularization, and the expulsion of theistic symbols (read Catholic) out of public spaces.”62 Among much of the conservative public in Croatia there is strong resistance to nongovernmental organizations and other civil bodies, which they perceive as 61 62

61

62

mainly on major holidays; and nominal believers who identify themselves confessionally but contact with faith have mainly in the rites of passage and attend Mass less frequently than on feasts (Baloban and Črpić, 2000; Črpić and Kušar, 1998; Marinović Jerolimov, 1999; 2005; Zrinščak et al., 2000). Šarac, Damir. “Tragom zagrebačkog slučaja: Ateisti kao bogovi.” Slobodna Dalmacija, March 11, 2009. http://209.59.234.145/Hrvatska/tabid/66/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/45578/ Default.aspx (accessed June 5, 2014). Tučkar, Damir. “zet i marketing – Tko plaća kartu Koaliciji za sekularizam?” Portal Hrvatskog kulturnog vijeća, April 19, 2009. http://www.hkv.hr/izdvojeno/vai-prilozi/s/ tukar-damir/4959-tko-plaa-kartu-koaliciji-za-sekularizam.html (accessed June 5, 2014).

134

MARINOVIĆ JEROLIMOV AND HAZDOVAC BAJIĆ

militant and aggressive in imposing minority worldviews onto the majority of the population: These are always one and the same non-governmental organizations and associations that are trying to impose their worldview on the majority, and they feel that their major obstacles are religious communities. They have a right to express their opinions, but not to constantly harass the majority. […] Yes, we live in a democracy, where every minority must be protected in everything, but the majority rules.63 Given this situation, a dialogue that is supposed to arise (and which followed in some other countries where an atheist campaign was implemented) did not happen in Croatia. However, escalation of tensions and the strengthening of divisions had been achieved. Gruenfelder concluded: “The public did not show its courage on this example. It could take advantage of this opportunity to debunk religious fundamentalism as a ‘religious dictatorship’, dictation of a single religious community, and its lack of understanding of basic civil rights.” Individual reactions to these events were numerous. There were large numbers of bloggers, columnists, writers, commentators and others who felt the need to choose their side. However, Genov said that nobody wanted to expose himself or herself too much. When a reporter called her to participate in a story and take some pictures in front of one of the zet’s trams she remembers that nobody wanted to do that. There was substantial media fuss and everybody was talking about the big ‘Atheist Campaign’, but Genov says: “There was no campaign, there wasn’t anybody who wanted to stand there, in front of the tram. People were saying: ‘Yes, it’s great that you did that, but my professor will see me, I go to college’ or ‘My mum will see me, she goes to church’… Anyway, there was complete fear and just then I realized how unusual what we did was.” Finally, two other women decided to stand beside her and pose for the picture. 5.7 Conclusion The analysis of the Atheist Bus Campaign in Croatia reflects the complex ­religious-secular dynamics in post-socialist times. In this respect the overlaps between the historical and the contemporary situation must be taken into account. In other words, this case reflects the tensions between both tendencies 63

63

Despot, Zvonimir. “Boga ima ili nema.” Večernji list, March 15, 2014. http://www.vecernji .hr/boga-ima-ili-nema-864991 (accessed June 6, 2014).

Croatia: Atheist Bus Campaign; One Day Stand

135

Figure 5.1  Sanja Burlović (Center for women war victims), Sanja Juras (Kontra) and Bojana Genov64

of secularization and de-secularization, privatization and de-privatization as well as religion being previously sub(versive)culture and religion ‘as culture’ (which it tries to be). Although constitutionally separated, state/church relations are far more complex than the regulation of religion, the present ‘hierarchy’ of religious communities and the above-mentioned lawsuit indicate. As religiosity became the new conformist pattern, nonreligiosity especially atheism, became somehow ‘suspicious’, perceived as reflecting ‘old communist ideology’. On the other hand, the interpretation of the Atheist Bus Campaign in Croatia has to take into account generations of nonreligiously socialized citizens, and diffused secularity at the level of values as well. However, the main goal of the campaign was achieved: a public discussion was initiated. Different actors participated in discussion, presented different attitudes towards religious, irreligious people and atheists, towards religion and particularly towards (the Catholic) church as well as towards human (minority and marginalized groups) rights. This involvement of believers, theologians, priests, journalists, politicians, atheist organizations and citizens, points to the increased democratization in Croatia, but the content of this public 64

64 Source: http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/55298/zivot-bez-boga-i-vraga-u-katolickoj-hrva tskoj.

136

MARINOVIĆ JEROLIMOV AND HAZDOVAC BAJIĆ

debate show the strong ideological polarization in Croatian society. It also indicated the changed position of atheism and atheist citizens: from official ideology and privileged position in society, to minority which is, like many other minorities, more or less marginalized and which finds it necessary to fight for its place in public space. The question if they are discriminated against still needs an answer, preferably supported by researches on the subject. On the other hand, the decision of public carrier zet showed that they conformed to the majority, but besides that, the question of where to put messages that express different (or all) kinds of opinion in public space remains open. References Ančić, Branko and Tamara Puhovski. 2011. Vjera u obrazovanje i obrazovanje u vjeri. (Faith in education and education in the faith.) Zagreb: Forum za slobodu odgoja. Ančić, Branko and Siniša Zrniščak. 2012. “Religion in Central European Societies: Its Social Role and People’s Expectations.” Religion and Society in Central and Eastern Europe 5: 21–38. Berger, Peter, ed. 1999. The Desecularization of the World. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Borowik, Irena and Gzegorz Babinski eds. 1997. New Religious Phenomena in Central and Eastern Europe. Krakow: Nomos. Bullivant, Stephen and Lois Lee. 2012. “Interdisciplinary Studies of Nonreligion and Secularity: The State of the Union.” Journal of Contemporary Religion, 27: 19–27. Burchrdt, Marian and Monica Wohlrab-Sahr. 2013. “Multiple Secularities: Religion and Modernity in the Global Age – Introduction.” International Sociology 28: 605–611. Casanova, José. 1994. Public Religions in the Modern World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Casanova, José. 2003. “Beyond European and American exceptionalisms: towards a global perspective.” In Grace Davie, Paul Heelas and Linda Woodhead (eds.) Predicting Religion. Christian, Secular and Alternative Futures, 17–29. Aldershot: Ashgate. Črpić, Gordan and Stjepan Kušar. 1998. “Neki aspekti religioznosti u Hrvatskoj.” (“Some aspects of religiosity in Croatia.”) Bogoslovska smotra, 68: 513–563. Črpić, Gordan and Siniša Zrinščak. 2010. “Dinamičnost u stabilnosti: religioznost u Hrvatskoj 1999. i 2008. godine.” (“Dynamism in the stability: religiosity in Croatia in 1999 and 2008.”) Društvena istraživanja 1.2: 3–27. de Beauvoir, Simone. 1956. The Second Sex. London: Lowe and Brydone. Davie, Grace. 2000. Religion in Modern Europe. A Memory Mutates. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Croatia: Atheist Bus Campaign; One Day Stand

137

Hadaway, C. Kirk and Wade Clark Roof. 1979. “Those Who Stayes Religious ‘Nones’ and Those Who Don’t: A Research Note.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 18: 194–200. Jakelić, Slavica. 2010. Collectivistic Religions. Religion, Choice, and Identity in Late Modernity. Furnham: Ashgate. LeDrew, Stephen. 2013. “Discovering Atheism: Heterogenity in Trajectories to Atheist Identity and Activism.” Sociology of Religion 74: 431–453. Marinović Jerolimov, Dinka. 1993. “Nereligioznost u Hrvatskoj od 1968–1990.” (“Nonreligiosity in Croatia 1968–1990”) In Štefica Bahtijarević, Prilozi izučavanju nereligioznosti i ateizma 2. Zagreb: Institut za društvena istraživanja, 87–136. Marinović Jerolimov, Dinka. 1999. “Religijske promjene u Hrvatskoj od 1989. do 1996. godine.” (“Religious Changes in Croatia 1989–1996.”) In Ivan Grubišić and Siniša Zrinščak, Religija i integracija. Zagreb: Institut društvenih znanosti IvoPilar, 187–203. Marinović Jerolimov, Dinka. 2001. “Religious Changes in Croatia: Some empirical data from 1972, 1982 and 1999 in the Zagreb Region.” In by Irena Borowik and Miklos Tomka, Religion and Social Change in Post-Communist Europe. Krakow: Zaklad Wydawniczy “Nomos,” 163–180. Marinović Jerolimov, Dinka. 2005. “Tradicionalna religioznost u Hrvatskoj 2004: između kolektivnoga i individualnoga.” (“Traditional religiosity in Croatia in 2004: between collective and individual.”) Sociologija sela, 43: 303–338. Marinović Jerolimov, Dinka. 2006. “Traditional Church Beliefs and Alternative Beliefs in Croatia.” In Irena Borowik, Religion, Churches and Religiosity in Post-Communist Europe. Krakow: Nomos, 253–265. Marinović, Ankica and Marinović Jerolimov, Dinka. 2012. “What about Our Rights? The State and Minority Religious Communities in Croatia: A Case Study.” Religion and Society in Central and Eastern Europe, 5: 39–53. Marinović Jerolimov, Dinka and Branko Ančić. 2014. “Ne/religioznost i stavovi prema seksualnosti i braku odrasle populacije u Hrvatskoj.” (“Non/religiosity and attitudes toward sexuality and marriage of the adult population in Croatia.”) Društvena istraživanja, 1: 111–132. Michel, Patrick. 1999. “Politika i religija poslije propasti komunizma.” (“Politics and religion after the fall of communism.”) In Ivan Grubišić and Siniša Zrinščak, Religija i integracija, Zagreb: Institut društvenih znanosti Ivo Pilar, 95–108. Nikodem, Krunoslav and Siniša Zrniščak. 2012. “Croatia’s Religious Story: The Coexistence of Institutionalized and Individualized Religiosity.” In Detlef Pollack, Olaf Müller and Gert Pickel, The Social Significance of Religion in the Enlarged Europe, Farnham: Ashgate, 207–227. Robertson, Roland. 1989. “Globalisation, Politics and Religion.” In James Beckford and Thomas Luckmann, The Changing Face of Religion, London: Sage, 10–23.

138

MARINOVIĆ JEROLIMOV AND HAZDOVAC BAJIĆ

Smith, Jesse M. 2011. “Becoming an Atheist in America: Constructing Identity and Meaning from the Rejection of Theism.” Sociology of Religion 72: 215–237. Stark, Rodney. 1999. “Atheism, Faith, and the Social Scientific Study of Religion.” Journal of Contemporary Religion 14: 41–62. Tomka, Miklós. 1995. “The Changing Social Role of Religion in Eastern and Central ­Europe: Religious Revival and its Contradictions”. Social Compass 42: 17–26. Vernon, Glen M. 1968. “The Religious ‘Nones’: A Neglected Category.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 7: 219–229. Vrcan, Srđan. 1999. “Novi izazovi za suvremenu sociologiju religije. Politizacija religije i religizacija politike u postkomunizmu.” (“New challenges for contemporary sociology of religion. The politicization of religion and religization of politics in postcommunism.”) Revija za sociologiju 1–2: 45–64. Vrcan, Srđan. 2001. Vjera u vrtlozima tranzicije. (Faith in the vortexes of transition.) Split: Dalmatinska akcija. Wilson, Bryan. 1987. “Secularization.” In Mircea Eliade, The Encyclopedia of Religion, New York: Macmillan, 159–165. Zrinščak, Siniša. 2004. “Religion and Society in Tension in Croatia: Social and Legal Status of Religious Communities.” In Jamet T. Richardson, Regulating Religion: Case Studies from Around the Globe, Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, 299–318. Zrinščak, Siniša. 2011. “Church, State and Society in Post-communist Europe.” In Jack Barbalet, Adam Possamai and Bryan S. Turner, Religion and the State: A Comparative Sociology, London: Anthem Press, 157–182. Zrinčšak, Siniša, Gordan Črpić and Stjepan Kušar. 2000. “Vjerovanje i religioznost.” (“Belief and religiosity.”) Bogoslovska smotra 70: 233–255. Zrinščak, Siniša, Dinka Marinović Jerolimov, Branko Ančić and Ankica Marinović. 2014. “Church and State in Croatia: Legal framework, religious instruction, and social expectations.” In Sabrina P. Ramet, Religion and Politics in Central and SouthEastern Europe: Challenges Since 1989, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 131–154. Zuckerman, Phil. 2011. Faith No More: Why People Reject Religion. New York: Oxford University Press.

chapter 6

Finland: The Recognition and Rearticulation of Atheism in Public Discourse Teemu Taira Most European societies have become more diverse in recent decades, even Finland, which is considered one of the most homogeneous societies in ­Europe.1 During the early 1990s, immigration into Finland increased, and public debate emerged on ‘religious diversity’. Earlier, there had been debates on the rights of Finland’s indigenous ethnic and cultural minorities (the Sami people, the Romani people and the Ingrians2), but following the arrival of ­Muslim immigrants and asylum seekers from the Balkan region, the Middle East and Somalia, religion became an integral part of the discourse on diversity. The framing of public debates according to the idea of diversity has led to new laws on religious freedom, including changes in the procedure for the registration of religious communities, and the organization of religious education in schools. During the same time period – from the early 1990s to the present day – the dominant church in Finland, the Evangelical-Lutheran Church, has been increasingly under pressure by liberal critics. The ordination of women became possible in 1986, but since then the issue of homosexuality and the Church has dominated the public debate from the mid-1990s and throughout the early years of the 21st century. As a result, one of the key divisions of opinion relating to the Lutheran Church is between liberals and conservatives. Furthermore, since the early 1990s the membership rates of the Lutheran Church of Finland have fallen from 88 percent to 73 percent (in 2015). This has been a massive change, especially considering that in the 1970s the membership rate was 95 percent and in the 1980s 90 percent. A small part of the decline can be explained by the increase in immigration, and there are some people who have joined other religious groups, but the overall trend is that people are less willing to be members of the Lutheran Church and that the number of Finns without any religious affiliation has increased. Despite the continuing dominant position of the Lutheran Church, these are the three visible trends in the Finnish religious landscape: increasing religious diversity, internal diversity 1 Vertovec 2007; Eurostat 2011; Martikainen 2013. 2 Ingrians: the Finnish-origin population of the region at the eastern end of the Gulf of Finland around present-day St Petersburg.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004328532_007

140

Taira

within the Lutheran Church, and the rise of religious ‘nones’.3 The public discourse concerning these issues starts from the point that despite its persistent relative homogeneity, Finland is diversifying in these three ways, thus making space for diverse voices to be heard, including atheists (in all varieties, such as Freethinkers and Humanists) and their criticisms of religion. This chapter describes and interprets the Finnish atheist bus ads campaign, which arguably was a key moment in recent times for Freethinkers and other antireligious voices to get themselves heard in the media. The campaign took place in three cities in the summer of 2009. The first section of the chapter describes the campaign and its main aims. The second section analyses the legal responses to the campaign. There were attempts to challenge its legality, but the main impact of the campaign was that it raised discussion in the media more generally. Therefore, the third section focuses on the social responses in the media. The concluding section summarizes the findings and suggests that the campaign is best understood as an attempt to get recognition, attention and visibility for the atheist cause and an attempt to reorient and rearticulate the basis for atheism from older associations with communism to the natural sciences. It will be suggested that the campaign and its reception can be taken as reflecting a wider shift from the largely taken-for-granted position of the dominant church towards a ‘post-traditional situation’ in which all traditions and viewpoints – religious or otherwise – must find recognition and justify themselves in public discourse.4 6.1

The Atheist Bus Ads Campaign in Finland

The organizers of the atheist bus ads campaign in Finland were the Union of Freethinkers of Finland and the Humanist Alliance. It took place in the three biggest cities in Finland: Helsinki, Turku and Tampere. The reasons for choosing these cities have not been publicly stated, but together they cover more than 20 percent of the whole country’s population. Furthermore, they are practically the only cities where Freethinkers and Humanists have enough members, support and resources to organize such a campaign. The campaign was organized slightly more than six months after the British one. It lasted for two weeks, starting at the end of June and finishing in early July. It was funded by donations. The aim had been to collect 12,000 euros for the campaign by the end of April 2009, but the organizers reported that they had raised only 10,700 3 ‘Nones’: persons stating their religious affiliation as ‘none’. 4 Giddens 1994; Giddens & Pierson 1998, 127–132.

Finland: The Recognition and Rearticulation of Atheism

141

euros.5 This shortfall did not prevent the campaign, but with more funding more advertisements could have been bought. The bus ads slogan in the capital of Finland, Helsinki, where the advertisements were placed both on buses and on trams, was “Jumalaa tuskin on olemassa. Lopeta siis murehtiminen ja nauti elämästä” which is a faithful translation of the text used in the original British campaign.6 This advertisement was not accepted in Turku and Tampere by the municipal transit authorities, and had to be revised, dropping explicit reference to the non-existence of God. The slogan used was: “Iloitse elämästäsi kuin se olisi ainoasi. Koska se on.” – “Enjoy your life as if it was the only one you have. Because it is.” The authorities in Turku also rejected as potentially offensive to religious passengers a version with the phrase “Uskomatonta kesää,” which is punningly ambiguous: the more obvious meaning is “[What an] Incredible Summer,” but it can also be read as “[Wishing you] a Summer without Faith.”7 The campaign had many aims. A member of the board of the Freethinkers in Tampere, Heikki Orsila, stated that the purpose was to promote equality of convictions and to emphasize that belief in God is not needed in order to enjoy life. It was also understood to be a yardstick for testing the level of freedom of speech, and a means of testing why some advertisements are considered normal and acceptable, and others not.8 Therefore, it was also a “counter-attack” against religious advertisements. More generally, there were at least three targets for the campaign. First of all, the campaign was organized in order to promote the idea of a religion-neutral state. This was not explicit in the bus advertisements, but the organizers’ main goal was to advance the disestablishment of the Church. The state/church relations have been very close in Finland. Although some argued that the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Finland is not a ‘state church’, but a ‘folk church’ or ‘national church’,9 the Lutheran Church not only enjoys privileged cultural and historical prestige, but certain of its privileges are legally (constitutionally) guaranteed. Changing the current situation is a long-term goal of the campaign organizers. 5 Uskomaton 2009. 6 “There’s Probably no God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life.” 7 “Ateistibussit aloittivat liikennöinnin pääkaupunkiseudulla,” Wikiuutiset 24.06.2009, http:// fi.wikinews.org/wiki/Ateistibussit_aloittivat_liikenn%C3%B6innin_p%C3%A4%C3%A4ka upunkiseudulla (accessed 4.1.2014). 8 “Vapaa-ajattelijoiden kampanja kehottaa elämäniloon,” yle News 22.06.2009, http://yle.fi/uu tiset/vapaa-ajattelijoiden_kampanja_kehottaa_elamaniloon/818464 (accessed 04.01.2014). 9 For an analysis of public debate, see Hjelm 2014.

142

Taira

Secondly, the campaign was a move in identity politics. Such activity garners visibility and thus works as a consciousness-raising event for both believers and non-believers alike. Furthermore, it was an attempt to establish the organizers – outspoken atheists who are critical of religion – as recognized and representative voices for a highly diverse group of people without religious affiliation. Among a total population in Finland of approximately 5.4 million, there are more than one million people who are not officially members of any registered religious association. Depending on the survey and the year when it was conducted, approximately 30–40 percent identify themselves as nonreligious persons, whereas usually only 3 percent identify themselves as atheists. While people sometimes raise critical voices against the Lutheran Church and religion in general, according to various surveys conducted between 1996 and 2011, the majority (60–77 percent) view the Lutheran Church positively.10 These figures indicate that only a few of the ‘nones’ are openly antireligious. However, by campaigning publicly for the ‘nones’ and their rights, the organizers, and the Freethinkers in particular, are taking the role of spokesperson for ‘nones’ in the media. It was also the case that the Freethinkers gained some new members because of the bus ads campaign, but the increase was moderate and temporary. In any case, it was their stated aim that the purpose of the website uskomaton.fi, which was launched at the same time as the campaign, was to become a portal for influential nonreligious people and to highlight nonbelievers’ lifestyles.11 Thirdly, the campaign was part of a series of strategies in rearticulating atheism in Finland. Partly because of the country’s traumatic recent history, living under the shadow of the Soviet Union, being an atheist has traditionally been seen as almost synonymous with being a communist. The Finnish ­Freethinkers have been seen – partly correctly – as part of the communist block within ­Finland. Although there were certainly Darwinist atheist voices in the public discourse among dialectical materialists in the 1970s, for example, the association between atheism and communism has been strong.12 Being an atheist was thus easily interpreted as being non-Finnish or anti-Finnish, since the Church was heavily involved in the wars against the Soviet Union, and therefore an integral part of the construction of Finnish nationality and the sense of F­ innishness. Jussi K. Niemelä, who was one of the key figures in 10 11

12

The surveys include Church Monitor (1999, 2002, 2004) Gallup Ecclesiastica (1999, 2003, 2011), issp (2008) and World Values survey (1996, 2000, 2005). “Vapaa-ajattelijoiden kampanja kehottaa elämäniloon,” yle News 22.6.2009, http:// yle.fi/uutiset/vapaa-ajattelijoiden_kampanja_kehottaa_elamaniloon/818464 (accessed 4.1.2014). Taira 2012a, 25–26.

Finland: The Recognition and Rearticulation of Atheism

143

organizing the atheist bus ads campaign in Finland and also the President of the Finnish Union of Freethinkers at that time, has explained that his mission since he became elected to the leadership of the union in summer 2008 has been to promote atheism based on the natural sciences and to remove the association between atheism and communism.13 The adaptation of the British bus ads campaign, led by the antireligious natural scientist Richard Dawkins among others, was thus a coherent strategy in the larger process of the rearticulation of atheism from communism and dialectical materialism to the ­natural sciences. 6.2

Legal Responses

There were several attempts that appealed to legal statutes to prevent the campaign from taking place. Even before the campaign started, the slogan itself was challenged, as explained in the previous section. This was not unexpected, since an earlier bus campaign in Tampere in early 2005 – with bus ads advertising the web portal Eroakirkosta.fi – literally ‘Resignfromthechurch.fi’, where people can resign from religious associations – had also encountered difficulties. The local authorities refused to allow the ads on their buses, and the Freethinkers’ appeal to the local Administrative Court was dismissed. Another complaint was made to the Supreme Administrative Court, whose statement was more tolerant for ads like this than the one given by the local court, but the decision was still the same – local authorities had the right to refuse the ads.14 After the slogans had been approved, the 2009 campaign encountered some further resistance. A complaint was made to the Council of Ethics in Advertisement by an unspecified individual, arguing that Muslim bus drivers would be forced to drive buses with the advertisements, which would thus be in contravention of the un Declaration of Human Rights. The message was alleged to be offensive, racist and inciting to ethnic hatred. The spokesperson for the organizers, Jussi K. Niemelä, responded that:

13 14

Heinimäki & Niemelä 2011, 35–36; “Vapaa-ajattelija on tietonarkkari,” Helsingin Sanomat 1.7.2009. The local Administrative Court suggested that the atheist bus advertisement might count as a case for incitement to religious hatred, while the Supreme Administrative Court stated simply that renting space for atheist bus advertisement is not something that should be guaranteed by the law, because it is not violating the right of atheist groups for free expression. http://www.uskonnonvapaus.fi/2005/tkl.html (accessed 4.1.2014).

144

Taira

as an advertiser, I don’t think our advertisement offends the un Declaration of Human Rights. On the contrary, as an association promoting equality of convictions and discussion about it, the purpose of our advertisement is precisely to promote in our society the basic rights mentioned in the Declaration. The right of nonbelievers to express their conviction is publicly guaranteed in the constitution and in laws concerning religious freedom and equality.15 The statement by the Council of Ethics in Advertisement noted that although some religious individuals might consider it disrespectful, the advertisement itself cannot be held as such, and ruled that the campaign did not offend against “good manners” in any way.16 Another incident which called for investigation was based on a public complaint by the chair of the Union of Freethinkers, who announced that the advertisements had been vandalized. He was “100 per cent sure” that some advertisements had been torn apart. He wanted the city of Helsinki to start an internal investigation in order to find out who was responsible, stating that “we have seen torn stickers and heard about them from the people who have glued them [on the buses]” and continuing that “this is sabotage and an offence to freedom of speech.” However, it remained unclear whether anything had in fact happened. A week earlier Helsingin Sanomat (June 14, 2009) had reported that some Muslim bus drivers had threatened to tear advertisements off their buses or refuse to drive them, but jc Decaux, the company that actually implemented the campaign, and the personnel manager of the Helsinki transit system, both announced that as far as they knew, nothing of this nature had occurred. After this the whole question of vandalism vanished from the media, and no investigation ever took place. One group of bus drivers also stated that they would not take any action against the campaign, since in any case they could not prevent it from happening. Furthermore, their potential counter-campaign – refusing to drive buses with these advertisements – could be interpreted as a refusal to work which would, again, have lead to another legal process.17 15 http://uskomaton.fi/kampanja/ (accessed 4.1.2014). 16 men 2009. 17 “Uskonnottomien bussikampanjan tarroista kiista,” Keskisuomalainen 22.06.2009, http://www.ksml.fi/uutiset/kotimaa/uskonnottomien-bussikampanjan-tarroista -kiista/807124, accessed 04.01.2014; “Uskonnottomien bussikampanjan tarroista riitaa,” Aamulehti 23.6.2009; “Ateistibussit aloittivat liikennöinnin pääkaupunkiseudulla,” Wikiuutiset 24.06.2009, http://fi.wikinews.org/wiki/Ateistibussit_aloittivat_liikenn%C3%B 6innin_p%C3%A4%C3%A4kaupunkiseudulla, accessed 04.01.2014; “Muslimikuljettajat käyvät kapinaan ateistien bussikampanjaa vastaan,” Helsingin Sanomat 14.06.2009;

Finland: The Recognition and Rearticulation of Atheism

145

These legal responses did not stop at the time when the actual campaign began. The fact that the original slogan had been rejected in Turku got some local politicians involved. Tarmo Aaltonen, chair of the Left Alliance of Northern Turku, lodged a complaint with the Chancellor of Justice, asking if the local authorities in Turku had acted against their duties or broken the law in rejecting the wording on the ad.18 The resulting enquiry took many months, with the Chancellor of Justice requesting an explanation for their decision from the local authorities, who responded – six months after the bus ads campaign had finished – that they are not under any obligation to accept advertisements that may have a harmful impact on the local transit or people’s image of it. They argued further that the sides of buses are not to be considered a free space of which anyone can have access. In addition, Sirpa Korte, manager of the Turku local transit system, emphasized that the original slogan linked enjoyment and atheism on the one hand, and anxiety and religiosity on the other hand, in an unjustified and probably offensive manner.19 6.3

Social Responses

“Did you see any of the atheist buses?” This is a question I have asked acquaintances as well as audiences when I have given talks at various events in Finland. None of my friends have answered affirmatively. I assume that they represent “ordinary” people, but the answers have not differed much among more specific groups. Only one out of approximately 100 teachers of religious education and philosophy, most of them working in the Greater Helsinki area where the main part of the campaign took place, raised a hand when I asked this question. Of 15 activists in the Humanist Alliance in Helsinki – one of the organizers of the bus ads campaign – a third raised their hands. However, practically everyone knew about the campaign and most had heard the slogan. This tells us an important thing about the atheist bus ads campaign itself: it was designed to get attention in the media. Personally, I happened to see one bus with the advertisement in the United Kingdom. It was in Leeds, England, in early 2009, when I was walking back home from the University, where I worked at that time. In the following summer, when the campaign took place

18 19

“Muslimikuljettajat eivät taistelekaan ateistien bussikampanjaa vastaan,” Helsingin Sanomat 220.6.2009. “Turun bussimainoskiista oikeuskanslerin syyniin,” Turun Sanomat 11.07.2009. “Turun selvitettävä oikeuskanslerille bussimainoskiistaa,” Helsingin Sanomat 21.01.2010; “Oikeuskansleri pyytää selvitystä Turun bussimainoskiistasta,” Turun Sanomat 21.01.2010.

146

Taira

in Finland, I spent some time there, but did not see any of the buses. However, I read about the case from newspapers and various websites. The proper focus of the event was the media and most of the social responses to the campaign took place there. The most substantial and systematic work on the media responses for the atheist bus ads campaign has been carried out by Sami Panttila.20 In his unpublished ma thesis, he analyzed the main newspapers from the three cities where the campaign took place – Helsingin Sanomat (Helsinki), Turun Sanomat (Turku) and Aamulehti (Tampere).21 According to his quantitative content analysis, the newspapers published 33 stories about the case, 16 in Helsingin Sanomat, 7 in Turun Sanomat and 10 in Aamulehti. This may not constitute a massive media event in terms of the amount of published stories, but it was a lively talking point in the Finnish media. There were 16 news stories, almost a third of the items were opinion letters (11) and only Aamulehti and Turun Sanomat commented on the topic in their editorial pages (once each).22 The rest of the items were opinion columns and other newspaper articles.23 The original British campaign was reported in Helsingin Sanomat in January 2009, but not in the other papers. When the donation strategy for the Finnish campaign was launched in March 2009, the situation was the same: It was not interesting enough for the smaller newspapers based in Turku and Tampere. It was notable, however, that already at this phase a small story about the campaign gathered more than sixhundred readers’ comments to the website of Helsingin Sanomat (which was at that time not yet behind a pay wall).24 Some of the key themes in the media revolved around the legal issues previously mentioned. For instance, the need to change the slogan in Turku and Tampere aroused media interest, and all three of the biggest newspapers 20 21

22

23

24

Panttila 2012. I have been involved in Panttila’s research process as a supervisor and an examiner, I have read the original material, and I rely on his analysis in some parts, but because his focus was on interpretations of freedom of religion in the media coverage of the campaign, our approaches are somewhat different, but not incompatible. I would like to express my warmest gratitude to him for letting me use the media material he has collected. The story in Aamulehti was actually a signed op-ed article and positioned on the page next to the editorials proper, so strictly speaking only Turun Sanomat published an editorial on the campaign. This material excludes other local papers, television and two main national tabloids, but the case was covered in them occasionally. I have added the biggest national tabloid, IltaSanomat, to the data, but it published surprisingly few substantial stories about the case. Panttila 2012, 73.

Finland: The Recognition and Rearticulation of Atheism

147

reported on the complaint made to the Council of Ethics in Advertisement.25 Jussi K. Niemelä was given a considerable amount of space in the stories, mainly because he represented the organizers of the campaign. He emphasized freedom of speech as the key frame for understanding the campaign, but the religious responses foregrounded other aspects, such as freedom of religion. The previously mentioned “mutiny of Muslim drivers” was an interesting example of how the media framed the debates. The media coverage brought Muslims to the fore in their headlines, and the spokesperson for the “mutiny” was Tapio Mäkinen, an ethnically Finnish bus driver from Helsinki, who had converted to Islam one and half years before the campaign. Some Pentecostalists and Eastern Orthodox Christians were also part of the protesting group, but they were not mentioned in the headlines. Therefore, the headlines in Helsingin Sanomat – “Muslim drivers’ mutiny against atheist bus campaign” and “Atheist bus campaign angers Muslim drivers” – not only simplified the actual diversity of the eighty drivers who signed the statement that they were unhappy with the campaign, but also singled-out Muslims as a particularly sensitive people who wish to limit free speech. However, in the actual story two ­Muslim drivers were interviewed: one was strongly against the bus ads campaign, whereas the other drew a distinction between his religion and his role at work, and commented that his colleagues’ reaction was “childish.”26 Otherwise, the religious responses were both scarce and mostly moderate in tone. None of the well-known bishops of the Lutheran Church commented on the campaign in the three main morning papers or in the biggest tabloid. Even remarks from lesser-known Lutheran pastors were limited. Hannu Kallio, one of the leading figures in the Lutheran Parish Federation in Turku, was one of the exceptions: He said that although some people might be offended if the existence of “sacred things” is questioned, the positive side of the campaign was that it challenged people to consider their ultimate concerns.27 Another voice from the Lutheran Church was Leena Huovinen – chaplain to the University of Helsinki and to the Finnish Olympic team – who commented in the most popular tabloid that people who think differently than believers have the right

25

26

27

“Jumalaa tuskin on olemassa -kampanja ärsyttää,” Aamulehti 30.6.2009; “Bussimainoksista kanneltiin Mainonnan eettiselle neuvostolle,” Turun Sanomat 30.6.2009; “Uskonnottomien bussimainoksesta kantelu,” Helsingin Sanomat 1.7.2009. “Muslimikuljettajat käyvät kapinaan ateistien bussikampanjaa vastaan,” Helsingin Sanomat 14.6.2009; “Ateistien bussimainos suututti muslimikuljettajat,” Helsingin Sanomat 14.6.2009. “Vapaa-ajattelijat harkitsevat oikeustoimia mainoskiistassa,” Turun Sanomat 23.6.2009.

148

Taira

to express their opinion.28 Jussi K. Niemelä has suggested that this moderate standpoint and relative silence might be a deliberate media strategy by the Lutheran Church.29 The more conservative wing of the Lutheran Church – ­particularly minority groups that can be labeled as Evangelicals – announced that they were organizing an event named “God Exists. Do Not Worry, Enjoy Life,” but otherwise their voice was not significantly present, at least in the mainstream media.30 Perhaps the most striking aspect of the religious responses was the silence. Therefore, while the campaign counts as an example of intensified media discourse and increased visibility of religion and atheism, it is not an example of what José Casanova has called deprivatization. Casanova argues that religions are becoming increasingly part of the public sphere, as rational conversation partners negotiating about the common good.31 This would have been an opportunity for the Lutheran Church to discuss issues such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the role and function of the church in Finnish society, but there was no ‘official’ response. In this case, the other parties discussed religion and atheism, but not the dominant church. While the campaign and the debates it triggered between defenders and critics of religion served the media’s interests very well, the media themselves were slightly cautious in highlighting their standpoint in the discussion. However, the editorial pages provide a clue. It was only Turun Sanomat and Aamulehti who dealt with the issue in their editorial pages. The editorial in Turun Sanomat was short – only five sentences – but it assumed that the motive of the campaign was to get people to resign from the church and stated bluntly that such a motive was “shaky.”32 Aamulehti published a story on its editorial page and labeled the case as a “faith-war.” It suggested that it had two sides: on the one hand, the censorship of the slogan may amount to offending freedom of speech, but on the other hand, the motives of the campaign were not commendable. The piece gave the whole campaign a cynical interpretation, hinting that getting attention was its main purpose. It also expressed hope that the “nones” would not become a new “fanatical group” since they are already in an equal position (i.e. they are not a suppressed minority and their right for free speech is not restricted). While the editorial had little sympathy for the campaign, it also questioned the response of the “Muslim drivers” for having 28 29 30 31 32

“Uskoa vai ei?” Ilta-Sanomat 04.07.2009. “Vapaa-ajattelija on tietonarkkari,” Helsingin Sanomat 01.07.2009. “Muslimikuljettajat eivät taistelekaan ateistien bussikampanjaa vastaan,” Helsingin Sanomat 22.06.2009. Casanova 1994. “Vakaumukset vastakkain,” Turun Sanomat 24.06.2009.

Finland: The Recognition and Rearticulation of Atheism

149

gained (unnecessary) publicity for the campaign.33 On the basis of a wider understanding of mainstream media’s take on religion-related debates, these editorials are quite typical: it is not easy for minorities – religious or otherwise – to get understanding and support from the mainstream media. At the same time, newspapers need to remind their readers that they are defending free speech, and therefore re-frame the campaign – against the framing preferred by the organizers – as not being a litmus test for free speech. This does not mean that the dominant church is always seen in a positive light, but that in situations where it is challenged by antireligious activists the mainstream media often gives it moderate support. The readers’ letters published in the newspapers, as is typical for any debate, represented diverse opinions. Some supported the campaign and others were against it, but the general tone of the letters was not too far from the position of the editorials: the attempts to prohibit the original slogan were seen as censorship, but the campaign was seen as insignificant or outright offensive.34 These letters, together with the wider media coverage, suggest that people support the principle that various groups can express their point of view, but oppose forms of expressions that seem to criticize others. I would support the interpretation that publicity provokes stronger opposition if it is understood as criticism of other people, groups or companies. For instance, if a bookstore advertises by suggesting not to buy from rival stores, people would be more likely to be offended than if a bookstore tells people what great books they have in stock. The overall content of the media coverage of the campaign focused on the attitudes and reactions of the various actors rather than on the goals of the campaign. This supports the idea of Roger Royle, British media professional, who has suggested that confrontation is one of the media’s “greatest delights” and that the mainstream media are interested in religion-related issues if one of three conditions are fulfilled: an out-of the-ordinary event takes place, interesting personalities (preferably celebrities) are involved, and the event can be easily framed as conflict.35 The atheist bus ads campaign fulfilled all three.

33 34

35

“Uskonsota bussikyydissä,” Aamulehti 25.06.2009. “Bussimainos voi loukata kristittyjäkin,” Helsingin Sanomat 22.06.2009; “Bussinkuljettajat tuskin ovat mainosten asialla,” Helsingin Sanomat 23.6.2009; [No title], Aamulehti 23.06.2009; “Sananvapauden tulisi ulottua kaikkiin ajatuksiin,” 27.06.2009; “Ruusuja bussiliikenteelle,” Turun Sanomat 01.08.2009; “Ateismia ei kannata pelätä,” Turun Sanomat 2.08.2009. Royle 2012. See also Gledhill 2012, 93–94; Landau 2012, 81.

150

Taira

First of all, the campaign was clearly unexpected and out of the ordinary: it was on a larger scale than previous antireligious campaigns, and its timing, followed by a period of increased public interest in atheism and criticism of religion, was well-considered.36 Secondly, while it did not involve celebrities as the British campaign did (Ariane Sherine and Richard Dawkins), part of the media coverage was nonetheless based on giving space for prominent personalities. For instance, Helsingin Sanomat published a story about the campaign spokesperson in the section “Today’s names,” which picks up famous, interesting and/or influential personalities. The story mentioned the bus ads campaign, but it focused on the person – his hairstyle, tattoos, childhood and worldview.37 The third condition, conflict, was also fulfilled, as the campaign was framed in the media as a confrontation between ordinary religious people and antireligious activists. Nonreligious people were seen as a homogeneous minority represented by the Freethinkers and other campaigning activists, whereas the ‘moderately religious’ – meaning ordinary members of the ­Lutheran Church – were constructed as the ‘normal majority’. As Panttila notes, local authorities were seen as actors ensuring that these normal people were not offended by the activities of antireligious campaigners.38 What is missing from the media are the nonreligious people (in terms of identification, stated beliefs and membership) who are not actively campaigning for a “nonreligious lifestyle” or against religion, and whose attitude toward the Lutheran Church is somewhat more positive than toward explicit atheists. That section of the population does not constitute a group easily graspable by the media, but it is a position shared by many. 6.4

Concluding Discussion

The atheist bus ads campaign was a single, identifiable event that elicited legal and social responses. As this chapter has demonstrated, the law was often referred to in the debate, but the impact of the limited judicial involvement 36

37 38

On the quantitative increase in and qualitative intensification of media discussion on atheism in Finland during the latter part of the first decade of 21st century, see Taira 2012a, 28–32. It is notable that four ‘New Atheist’ bestsellers – The End of Faith by Sam Harris, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, Breaking the Spell by Daniel Dennett and God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens – had been translated in Finnish between 2007 and 2008, so the momentum was there for campaigning. “Vapaa-ajattelija on tietonarkkari,” Helsingin Sanomat 01.07.2009. Panttila 2012, 83.

Finland: The Recognition and Rearticulation of Atheism

151

was relatively ineffectual. None of the legal bodies prevented the campaign from taking place, and none of them overturned the decisions made by the local authorities in Turku and Tampere who insisted on a revised form of the advertisement. The social responses, evidenced in the mainstream media coverage of the campaign, were moderate, perhaps with the exception of discussion forums in the internet, where opinions are rarely expressed in a restrained manner. The organizers, particularly the Union of Freethinkers, received more space in the media than usual, but the coverage was not all positive. Furthermore, the campaign did not prompt a massive response from the dominant Lutheran Church. It could be concluded, then, that the campaign was rather disappointing from the organizers’ point of view. However, it is best to see the campaign as part of a wider process in which vocal critics of religion and spokespersons of atheism have become more active. It was, indeed, part of a more generally increased visibility of atheism in Finland.39 One way to evaluate the potential success and influence of the campaign is to see if it had any impact on the development of the secularist policy that aims to further the separation of the Lutheran Church and the state and to promote a religiously neutral state. No changes have emerged in church/state relations since the campaign, but it would be unrealistic to expect an immediate transformation. The campaign was merely one move in an extended game that is likely to continue in one form or another for a long time. Rather, it was a response to the increased visibility of religion and continuing status of the Lutheran Church in Finland – a statement of intent rather than anything else. The web-portal Eroakirkosta.fi is arguably more important, because people do use this website for terminating their Church memberships. This has meant significant financial losses to the Lutheran Church in the form of reduced tax income. Furthermore, the declining membership rate functions in the public debate as an argument against the privileged status of the Lutheran Church. In recent years the peaks in resignation have not been caused by antireligious campaigning, but mainly by public debates where conservative Christians expressed opinions and values to which some church members have reacted by resigning from the Lutheran Church. The second way to evaluate the campaign is to focus on identity politics.40 One of the aims of the campaign was to raise consciousness of atheism, to coax nonreligious people out of their closets and state their identity, and 39 40

Taira 2012a. I have argued elsewhere that it is useful and fruitful to interpret the rise of the “new atheism” as identity politics, but on that occasion I did not focus on the Finnish atheist bus ads campaign. See Taira 2012b.

152

Taira

to get the undecided to reflect on their standpoints. Because of the bus ads campaign and other activities, the visibility of atheism has increased in Finland.41 Furthermore, despite (and because of) the criticism, the campaigners gained public attention. This has not meant increased popularity, at least in any direct way, but it has functioned as part of a larger consciousness-raising project.42 Surveys indicate that people in Finland are now more likely to have an opinion about atheists: between 2008 and 2011 the percentage of “Don’t know” answers to the question “What is your opinion of atheists?” fell from 25 percent to 12 percent. The positive response had slightly increased, from 18 percent in 2008 to 22 in 2011, but so had the negative, from 22 to 26 percent. The rest had a neutral attitude.43 It is unlikely that the bus ads campaign is the only reason for this change, but it would also be unconvincing to suggest that it did not have any impact. In addition to general consciousness-raising in Finnish society, the campaign also strengthened the role of the Union of Freethinkers as the main voice of organized nonreligiosity in the public sphere, and of their chair at that time, Jussi K. Niemelä, in particular. In the media it was understood as the Freethinkers’ campaign; when the Humanist Alliance was mentioned, it was referenced after the Freethinkers. Furthermore, no representatives of the Humanist Alliance participated in the public debate. Niemelä himself was a member of the board of the Humanist Alliance at that time, but he was publicly identified as a Freethinker. When I was invited as a guest speaker to a meeting of the Humanist Alliance in Helsinki in October 2013, they mentioned their disappointment that the media attention had focused on only one of the organizers, namely the Freethinkers. In my estimation, their complaint is fully justified, but it is also worth noting that the two associations have followed different strategies: while the Union of Freethinkers have focused on media provocations, the Humanist Alliance has preferred the educational context, by defending the rights of ‘nones’ in schools and supporting the school subject called Elämänkatsomustieto, often translated as ‘world views’ or ‘ethics’, but literally translated as ‘study of lifeviews’, which is a nonreligious alternative for religious education in the Finnish school system. It can also be argued that the success was limited even for the Union of Freethinkers. From this perspective the campaign was primarily successful for their chairperson who got his moment in the media. For example, as a result 41 42 43

Taira 2012a, 28. Taira 2012a. The surveys were issp 2008 and Gallup Ecclesiastica 2011. The form of the question and the options for response were the same. See Taira 2012a, 32n19.

Finland: The Recognition and Rearticulation of Atheism

153

of the campaign Helsingin Sanomat did not write a story about the Freethinkers in Finland, but, as mentioned above, an article about Jussi K. Niemelä the person. In 2010, Niemelä resigned from the Union of Freethinkers, and has subsequently made derogatory remarks about the association, calling it, for instance, an “exceptionally quarrelsome freak-cult.”44 Since his resignation, the Union of Freethinkers has received less publicity, and the membership has ceased to grow.45 While the association strengthened its role through the campaign as the dominant voice of nonreligiosity, it has not been able to maintain the momentum it had with Niemelä as its chairperson.46 As mentioned earlier, it is the Eroakirkosta website that currently gets most of the media attention. Although its aims are predominantly the same as those of the Union of Freethinkers, its strategy is very different, as it avoids provocative campaigning, and in its contacts with the media mainly provides factual information about church resignations and the possible reasons for these. In some ways, therefore, the atheist bus ads campaign gave the Union of Freethinkers a momentum that they have failed to maintain. Their next campaign involved swapping porn magazines for Bibles, following a us example where Atheist Agenda had offered Hustler magazines in exchange for religious books at the University of Texas at San Antonio.47 This took place in 2010, when Niemelä was still chair, and provoked a very negative media response. Even many nonreligious people, from those who were indifferent to those who were campaigning activists, thought that it was an unfortunate project that should never have been launched.48 Since then, the number of campaigns has waned, and these antireligious associations have not gained in popularity, although some of their views concerning a religiously neutral state and the value of a nonreligious lifestyle are shared by many influential people in Finland. The third, less prominent but nonetheless significant aspect of the campaign was the rearticulation of atheism from communism to the natural sciences.49 The campaign slogan emphasized two aspects – that God does not 44 45

46 47 48 49

Heinimäki & Niemelä 2011, 63. The membership grew steadily between 2007 and 2010, from slightly over 1400 to 1986, but after that it went down to 1802 in 2011 and 1815 in 2012. http://www.ateistit.fi/uutiset/ uuti130426.html, (accessed 11.01.2014); http://www.vapaa-ajattelijat.fi/node/131; (accessed 11.01.2014). This conclusion does not imply that the membership rates and visibility would have continued to grow if Niemelä had stayed in charge of the association. http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/religion/article/Atheist-group-changing-its -message-4947906.php; (accessed 11.01.2014). Taira 2012a, 31–32. See Taira 2012a, 26, 32.

154

Taira

exist and that God-related worrying about the afterlife is futile. These suggest that religion is about beliefs in propositional statements about the world, beliefs that are easy to give up in the face of alternative, scientific explanations. Religion is understood to be about individual or private choice and in rivalry to the natural sciences, rather than, say, something comparable to ethnicity, lifestyle or membership in a community. The point here is not to propose that religion, in its essence, is one or the other, but that the campaign was part of a wider attempt to frame the debate so that the natural sciences are considered relevant for atheism by providing an alternative to religion. I have already mentioned that replicating the British campaign, led by the famous scientist Richard Dawkins, was part of this rearticulation. Furthermore, in the article Helsingin Sanomat wrote about him, Niemelä emphasized the natural sciences and a scientific worldview.50 Yet another example of this wider rearticulation is the recent translation by Freethinkers, including Niemelä, of The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, edited by Michael Martin. The Finnish edition, published in 2010, is notably different: its back cover has a pro-atheist message one cannot find in the original, some texts that were not in line with the natural scientific or social scientific pro-atheism message were excluded (one discussing the Kalam argument and arguing for the existence of God, one dealing with a feminist perspective, and one on postmodern a/theology which questioned the neat division between atheism and religion), and the translators have added their own text arguing for atheism and the cognitive study of religion.51 Particularly among young people, for whom the threat of the atheist communism of the Soviet Union is not part of their experience, it looks as though this rearticulation is successfully taking place. Overall, the campaign reflected a wider shift towards a post-traditional situation. ‘Post-traditional’ is a term coined by the sociologist Anthony Giddens to describe the current society in which none of the traditions – religious or otherwise – can be taken for granted.52 It does not mean that these traditions are somehow vanishing, but that the status of traditions has changed from a taken-for-granted position to one in which they need to be discursively justified in public (meaning that what we call traditions in our everyday language disappear as ‘traditions’ only in a specific Giddensian sense). Giddens writes about fundamentalism in this context, but he does not focus on religion more generally. However, it seems to me that the term helps us to interpret both the current discourse on religion in Finland and also the atheist bus ads campaign. 50 51 52

“Vapaa-ajattelija on tietonarkkari,” Helsingin Sanomat 1.7.2009. Martin 2007; 2010. Giddens 1994; Giddens & Pierson 1998, 127–132.

Finland: The Recognition and Rearticulation of Atheism

155

The dominance of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Finland is not over, but the church has been challenged and is having to adjust to the discourse on diversity. That all traditions not only have to justify themselves in the public discourse, but that they have to do so by admitting first that Finland is now a diverse society, captures the current situation. Despite the fact that the ­Lutheran Church has a privileged position in the society and that its response to the atheist bus ads campaign was very restrained, it has accepted that it now needs to justify itself in public discourse, particularly when the media voice criticism of the Church.53 Therefore, it is understandable that various voices have entered the public sphere in order to challenge and question the Church’s hegemonic position, hoping that the media and other actors would support their causes. The atheist bus ads campaign is best seen as part of a series of challenges posed to the majority church by the antireligious activists, and simultaneously as an attempt to achieve attention and recognition for their position in a post-traditional situation. References Casanova, José. 1994. Public Religions in the Modern World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Eurostat. 2011. Migrants in Europe. European Commission. Giddens, Anthony. 1994. “Living in a Post-Traditional Society.” Ulrich Beck, Anthony Giddens & Scott Lash. Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Cambridge: Polity Press, 56–109. Giddens, Anthony & Pierson, Christopher. 1998. Conversations with Anthony Giddens. Cambridge: Polity Press. Gledhill, Ruth. 2012. “Mirrors to the World.” Jolyon Mitchell & Owen Gower (eds), Religion and the News. Farnham: Ashgate, 89–98. Heinimäki, Jaakko & Niemelä, Jussi K. 2011. Kamppailu Jumalasta. 12 erää uskosta. Helsinki: Helsinki-kirjat. Hjelm, Titus. 2014. “National Piety: Religious Equality, Freedom of Religion and National Identity in Finnish Political Discourse.” Religion 44.1: 28–45. Landau, Christopher. 2012. “What the Media Thinks about Religion: A Broadcast Perspective.” Jolyon Mitchell & Owen Gower (eds), Religion and the News. Farnham: Ashgate, 79–87. 53

As seen, the media sided with the Lutheran church in this case. In other cases where the media have taken a different view, the dominant church has become more active in the public justification process.

156

Taira

Martikainen, Tuomas. 2013. Religion, Migration, Settlement: Reflections on Post-1990 Immigration to Finland. Leiden: Brill. Martin, Michael (ed.). 2007. The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Martin, Michael (ed.). 2010. Ateismi. Tampere: Vastapaino. MEN 2009. MEN lausunto. 2009. Yhteiskunnallinen viestintä, “Jumalaa tuskin on olemassa” bussikampanja, August 19. http://kauppakamari.fi/statement-archive/ men-lausunto-202009-yhteiskunnallinen-viestint%C3%A4-%E2%80%9Djumalaa -tuskin-on- olemassa%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%93bussikampanja/. Panttila, Sami. 2012. Uskonnonvapauden tulkintoja: Ateistien bussikampanjan vastaanoton analyysi. Unpublished MA-thesis. Comparative Religion, University of Turku. Royle, Roger. 2012. “Popular Media, News and Religion.” Jolyon Mitchell & Owen Gower (eds), Religion and the News. Farnham: Ashgate, 153–160. Taira, Teemu. 2012a. “More Visible but Limited in Its Popularity: Atheism (and Atheists) in Finland.” Approaching Religion 2.1: 21–35. Taira, Teemu. 2012b. “New Atheism as Identity Politics.” Mathew Guest & Elisabeth Arweck (eds), Religion and Knowledge: Sociological Perspectives. Farnham: Ashgate, 97–113. Uskomaton. 2009. http://uskomaton.fi/kampanja/. Vertovec, Steven. 2007. “Super-Diversity and its Implications” Ethnic and Racial Studies 29.6: 1024–1054.

chapter 7

Germany: The Atheist Bus Ads Campaign in Germany Björn Mastiaux The aim of this article is to explore the atheist bus ads campaign as it was carried out in Germany in 2009. Modeled on the United Kingdom (uk) atheist bus campaign, it will be shown that the initiative for the German campaign generated three notable responses. These had consequences: (1) for the way the campaign was actually carried out, (2) for the way it was perceived, as well as (3) for the condition of the secularist movement in Germany as a whole. The first of these responses was the refusal of all municipal transport companies in seventeen cities across Germany, which had been approached, to carry ads with the slogan “There is (with a probability bordering on certainty) no god” on their vehicles. Reasons given for these rejections – sometimes after initial acceptance – by the municipal agencies ranged from the fear that the campaign might shock passengers, over its classification as “god-despising,” to resolutions not to accept any worldview or religion related posters any longer. Even though it was claimed that the decisions not to facilitate the campaign were reached without church intervention, this response seems symptomatic of a country in which the promotion of religious belief and piety is still seen as being the responsibility of the state. Thus unable to promote their message on public ad space, the campaigners, instead, decided to hire an historic red double-decker bus, to equip it with their posters, and to take it on a threeweek-long tour throughout the country. While the rejection of the municipal transport companies to carry a godless message is suggestive of the traditional European model of state religion, the bus tour sparked the second significant response, which is more suggestive of a budding religious market model even in a country such as Germany. It was the decision of the German branch of the evangelical Campus Crusade for Christ to rent a white luxury coach, to place the slogan “Knowing God” on it, to follow (or chase) the atheist campaigners on their tour, and to set up camp in the same places as they would. This changed the character of the campaign, which was supposed to help raise the self-esteem of the nonreligious, to a debating tour. Consequently, newspaper and television reports of the bus tour show the atheist campaigners in direct opposition of and in competition with religious

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004328532_008

158

MASTIAUX

missionaries. This media framing made it hard for the atheists to convincingly state that they were not out to proselytize. The third notable response to the initiative was the willingness of several atheist and secularist organizations in different parts of the country to support the campaign by organizing events in the cities where the bus would make a stop. Examples were open-air show acts by secular comedians, book readings, or guided tours with the atheist bus to landmarks of atheism and secularism in the different localities. While this brought about some further cohesion to a movement that already had experienced some mobilization and a new identity with the help of the ‘New Atheism’ literature and proponents, the bus tour was also a topic of contention for the secularist field. The German Humanists, for example, distanced themselves from the campaign. 7.1

The German Campaign: Early Planning and Background

The German secular bus ads campaign (“Säkulare Werbekampagne”) originated in Berlin. Peder Iblher, a marketing specialist without any former ties to organized freethought and secularism, had read about the British bus ads campaign and came up with the idea to adopt it for the German situation.1 Iblher found six co-organizers, partly by using the online message board of Berlin-based ‘Brights’,2 and started preparations for a campaign together with them under the label of “the godless seven” (“die gottlosen Sieben”). The other public faces of the campaign became Carsten Frerk, at the time chief editor of the Humanist Press Service web page (Humanistischer Pressedienst),3 and Philipp Möller, who had just completed his university studies and taken up work as a substitute grammar school teacher. The idea of the campaigners was to collect donations for posters that were to be carried on urban busses in Berlin, Cologne, and Munich for three months. The posters were to resemble the ones from the uk example regarding their 1 If not stated otherwise, this report is based on information from the campaign’s website, www.buskampagne.de, a documentary film on the tour (Hinz 2011), as well as an interview by the author with the campaign’s spokesman, Philipp Möller, conducted in Berlin on October 17, 2014 (Möller 2014). 2 In reaction to press reports about authors such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett supporting the self-labeling of naturalists as “Brights” and in addition to the official “The Brights Net” (www.the-brights.net), a number of national and regional web forums for “Brights” had sprung up in Germany. The one the campaigners found each other through was this one: www.brightsberlin.wordpress.com. 3 www.hpd.de.

GERMANY: THE ATHEIST BUS ADS CAMPAIGN

159

design and their more nonbelief-affirming rather than anti-religious message. This agreement had been reached together with Ariane Sherine, the initiator of the original campaign. Yet the actual slogans the German campaign proposed differed from that of the uk and were to be voted on by donators. The options presented were (in approximate translations): • Happy without God,4 • God is an assertion. Human rights are real,5 and • There is (with a probability bordering on certainty) no god.6 The winning slogan was to be combined with subtitles such as “For a fulfilled life it does not take faith,”7 “It all depends on us,”8 or “Enlightenment means taking over responsibility.”9 Despite the somewhat technical insertion, at the time the necessary amount of €19,500 had been collected (a mere four days after the launch of the campaign’s website), the majority of donors had opted for the third slogan. The campaigners had decided to use the bulky “with a probability bordering on certainty” in order to avoid the rather insecure sounding “probably” of the original campaign and yet to be epistemologically correct. “Now Stop Worrying” from the uk bus ads was not adopted, they argued, because belief in Hell was not widespread in Germany and because the German campaign was not in reference to any particular religious campaign, as was the case in the British example.10 The stated aim of the campaign in Germany, as named in early press interviews by Möller and Frerk, was to show other nonreligious people that they were not alone as well as to counter arguments that relate ethical values exclusively to religion (cf. e.g. Wandt 2009). At the time, declarations such as “for morals it takes God”11 could be heard regularly in the course of a political debate in the federal state of Berlin, which was reported on nationwide. A coalition of churches, conservative politicians, and public personalities had opposed a ruling by the senate of Berlin that had made a common ethics class for 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

German original: “Gottlos glücklich.” German original: “Gott ist eine Behauptung. Menschenrechte sind real.” German original: “Es gibt (mit an Sicherheit grenzender Wahrscheinlichkeit) keinen Gott.” German original: “Ein erfülltes Leben braucht keinen Glauben.” German original: “Auf uns kommt es an.” German original: “Aufklärung heißt, Verantwortung übernehmen.” Cf. on the campaign’s website under “Infos”: http://www.buskampagne.de/indexc583 .html?page_id=28#5. German original: “Werte brauchen Gott!”

160

MASTIAUX

all students in the state’s public schools mandatory, leaving denominational religious education only as a voluntary class that could be taken in addition to that course. The initiative, which called itself “Pro Reli” (“pro religious education”), had pushed a public referendum demanding to make confessional religious education a mandatory subject as well and to have students (or their parents on their behalf) choose between ethics or religious education.12 While the bus campaigners declined to take a position in this particular conflict, they strove to counter the “religious arrogance” that they claimed surfaced in disputes such as this one (cf. Wandt 2009). Strengthening the self-esteem of the nonreligious should not only make them aware and proud of a secular humanist morality, but also help the one-third of the German population without religious affiliation to identify as a group and to counter taken-for-granted church privileges (cf. Erhardt 2009). Möller describes how he himself only saw a need to become active in a project like the bus campaign after he had realized that there was a political dimension to the issue. Even though never religious himself, he had long-since believed that religion should be left alone, as he considered faith to be a private matter. This only changed when he learned that the German state subsidized the churches by 19 billion euros every year, in addition to the public funding of church-run welfare institutions. Only then did he start looking for like-minded people and eventually was introduced to the organizers of the bus campaign (cf. Möller 2014). 7.2

Response One: Obstacles on the Way to a Campaign

On March 11, 2009, Spiegel Online, Germany’s most popular news website, asked: “Do you live in Cologne, Munich, or Berlin? Then don’t be surprised, if someday soon you’ll be passed by a local bus carrying this unusual message: ‘There is (with a probability bordering on certainty) no god. Enlightenment means taking over responsibility’” (Lubbadeh 2009a). This article put the freshly started campaign into the public spotlight. It mentioned the previous atheist bus ads campaigns in England and Spain, referred to the German organizers as “happy without god,” and reported that they had collected €3,500 right after launching their website, www.buskampagne.de. This helped the campaign to reach its fundraising goal of almost €20,000 within days, but only one week later a new 12

While “Pro Reli” was successful in getting the referendum, this did not bring the outcome they had anticipated. Most Berliners eventually voted against confessional religious education as regular school subject and for keeping a common ethics class for all students mandatory.

GERMANY: THE ATHEIST BUS ADS CAMPAIGN

161

headline on Spiegel Online read: “Atheist Campaign: German cities don’t want godless messages on busses” (Lubbadeh 2009b). The municipal transport companies of Berlin, Cologne, and Munich – the cities approached for the initial run of the campaign – had declined to carry the atheist posters on their busses. While it was not clear at that point whether the decision in Munich was final (it was reported to be referred back and forth between local transporter mvg and the advertising agency working for it), Cologne’s kvb explained that it did not want to stir further controversy after the recent collapse of the city’s historical archive building, presumably caused by construction work on a new subway line. Berlin’s bvg instead reacted to the request by issuing a resolution not to carry any religion or worldview related advertising on their vehicles any longer. While the atheist campaigners viewed this regulation as a success of sorts (cf. Mühlbauer 2009) – advertising stickers on subway windows declaring that “Jesus saves you,” for example, were commonplace up to this point – they also denounced it as a case of double standards, coming after many years of religious advertising on Berlin’s subway trains and busses (cf. Steinmaier 2009). This view was echoed by the local and national media, especially in light of the fact that bvg had just recently allowed campaigners of “Pro Reli” to collect signatures for their referendum to install confessional religious education as a mandatory subject in public schools on its subway platforms and trains (cf. e.g. Heiser 2009a, 2009b, Neumann 2009). Press reports on this inconsistency helped donations to the secular bus ads campaign to “go through the roof,” as Möller reports (Möller 2014),13 but they did not stop other municipal transport companies from declining to carry the ads as well. The city of Bremen, for example, asked its transport company not to accept them, as it was to host that year’s “German Evangelical Church Assembly” (“Deutscher Evangelischer Kirchentag”) – a publically subsidized event by the Protestant Church of Germany (ekd – Evangelische Kirche in ­Deutschland) – and atheist posters on Bremen’s municipal busses would hurt the city’s image (cf. Laaff 2009). The city of Nuremberg’s vag feared that its customers might mistake the company itself as the sender of the godless message and generally be inconvenienced (cf. Kasperowitsch 2009). Other cities’ transport companies also reasoned that customers might be made to feel uncomfortable, claimed that no ad space was available, or did not react at all. Another special case was that of the city of Dortmund. Here the officially pronounced reason for denying the campaign’s posters was that they were

13

The campaign collected a total of 44.864 euros in donations. With the exception of one individual donation of 1.000 euros, average donors gave 20 euros each.

162

MASTIAUX

deemed “god-despising” (cf. Mühlbauer 2009).14 Instead, the city’s transport company already had a bus running with a poster stating “Don’t worry: God exists. Therefore: have a nice day!”15 that was commissioned by a local Catholic outreach institution in reaction to the British bus ads campaign (cf. Laaff 2009). Friar Siegfried Modenbach, who initiated the advertisement, said the Dortmund transport company had welcomed this move by the Catholics with open arms (cf. Mader 2009). In an interview for Zeit Magazin at the time, Philipp Möller speculated that the plethora of refusals to carry the posters proved “the far reach of the Church’s arm” (Willemsen 2009). In some cases, he argued, it also showed the personal enthusiasm of individuals in charge, such as the mayor of the city of Hamm, who supposedly prided himself for personally having prevented a godless bus in his city (cf. ibid., Wiedemeyer 2009). While today Möller still believes that the churches’ influence on politics and public institutions is extensive, he finds it even more plausible that the transport companies’ decisions might be the result of “anticipatory obedience” (“vorauseilender Gehorsam,” Möller 2014) – the transport companies’ willingness to act on the anticipated rejection of the campaign by the churches or their willingness to ask church representatives for their permission. This assumption is substantiated by the case of the city of Essen, whose transport company (evag) was the only one in the early stages of the campaign that had agreed to accept the secular posters – but later renounced that decision due to alleged customer complaints (cf. Sponholz 2009). In newspaper interviews on the issue, evag’s spokesman Olaf Frei frankly reported that his company had initially actively “sought the compliance with the church representatives” (Wiedemeier 2009) and that “both the city deacon as well as the superintendent viewed it (the campaign) in a competitive spirit and were looking forward to the resulting debate” (Wandt 2009). This case illustrates clearly the situation of a “halting separation of state and church in the Federal Republic of Germany” (Cavuldak 2013).16 Despite a commitment to religious neutrality and the renouncement of a state church in the Basic Law (“Grundgesetz” – the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany), for historical reasons the dioceses of the Roman Catholic Church in Germany (Römisch-katholische Kirche in Deutschland) and the Evangelical or Protestant Church of Germany (Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland, ekd) – as well as a few smaller religious congregations – enjoy the status of statutory corporations (“Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts”), which entitles them 14 15 16

German original: “gottesverachtend.” German original: “Keine Sorge: Es gibt Gott! Also: Schönen Tag!” German original: “hinkende Trennung von Staat und Kirche in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland.”

GERMANY: THE ATHEIST BUS ADS CAMPAIGN

163

to tax exemptions, the right to have a church tax collected, and to seats on public commissions. Some of their personnel, like bishops, have a status similar to that of civil servants and are paid out of the general state budget. Accordingly, and more importantly, high-ranking representatives from the two churches are viewed in large parts of the population as authorities. Therefore it is at least likely that they were also consulted by other municipal transport companies. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic and the Protestant Churches in G ­ ermany are seen as representatives of traditional, official, and legitimate religion, while most other religious congregations are conceived of as dubious ‘sects’ ­(‘Sekten’): “Many American evangelical Protestant missionaries in Germany complain that all denominations other than the two state churches are considered cults by the German news media, a judgment that is often encouraged by the government,” state Stark and Finke (2000, p. 233; emphasis in original), who see Germany as a sacralized country with a regulated religious market. The state guards and guarantees the influence of selected traditional churches, while actively hindering and harassing other religious groups (cf. ibid., 232f). This may help to explain why reservations against religious organizations, other than the established churches, served as a further argument against carrying the secular posters for Berlin’s transport company. bvg spokeswoman Petra Reetz is reported to have said that her company did not have anything against atheists, but that if they were allowed to advertise on Berlin’s subways and busses, soon other religious groups might demand the same: “Tomorrow it might be the Scientologists” (cf. Neumann 2009). Philipp Möller replied that this was a valid argument, even though he finds it strange that, in statements like this, a worldview which denies the supernatural is lumped together with a belief system such as Scientology (cf. Steinmaier 2009). Yet he also believed that every worldview organization should have the same right to advertise. Therefore it was surprising to see that bvg and other transport companies had not grasped the inconsistency of their actions with respect to conventional Christianity prior to the atheist ads submission for approval. At first, the campaigners had considered filing a complaint against this unequal treatment (cf. ibid.), but later they gave up on the idea. On the one hand, a success seemed unlikely, as municipal agencies are not obliged to accept any kind of advertising. On the other hand, the “godless seven” did not want to spend the donated money on a lawsuit, but on a bus ads campaign, as they had promised (cf. Möller 2014). After it had become clear that posters on city busses could not be realized, the group was in need of a different idea for spending the donations appropriately and effectively. Renting billboards and printing slogans on t-shirts was considered, but for the sake of media attention the organizers saw it as a necessity to produce attractive pictures which – in order to establish the

164

MASTIAUX

­connection to the uk campaign – featured images of busses (cf. ibid.). One suggestion was to produce a billboard with an atheist bus in it, reading: “I am standing here because I am not allowed to drive through this city.” This, finally, led the group to the idea of renting their own private bus, and instead of putting its picture on a billboard, they decided to drive that bus throughout the whole country (cf. Frerk 2009, p. 37). As they did not want to use a “boring coach” for their trip, the team considered it great luck when, by chance, they found a red double-decker bus that could be rented for three weeks in a row and whose owners, in their typical Berlin laissez-faire attitude, “did not care whether it would carry ads for dildos or atheism, as long as it was legal” (Möller 2014). This way, the initiative for a secular bus ads campaign turned into a secular bus tour. 7.3

Response Two: From Awareness Campaign to Worldview Contest

From May 30 to June 18, 2009, the “Säkulare Werbekampagne” drove their red double-decker bus through Germany with stops in about 25 cities on the way. The tour started out in Berlin, continued north to the Baltic Sea, then south via Hamburg and Bremen to North-Rhine Westphalia with the cities of the Ruhr as well as Düsseldorf and Cologne, then further south to cities such as Frankfurt and Stuttgart, on to Munich and the Bavarian foothills of the Alps, and up north again via Nuremberg and Dresden (besides other towns), and back to Berlin. This way it passed through a variety of regions which are shaped quite differently with respect to religion. While Berlin and the East German states are known to be largely secularized, Northern Germany is characterized by mainline Protestantism. The mid-western states are religiously mixed, with the exceptions of Münster and Cologne that are seen as Catholic strongholds. Stuttgart is known for a large Pietist community, whereas most of Bavaria is firmly Catholic. The campaigners report that the tour was a trip full of surprises (cf. Lubbadeh 2009c). They observed that the stronger a city was influenced by Catholicism, the more resistance the campaign faced from the local authorities. In Cologne, for example, the city denied assigning the bus an official parking position and threatened to ban it from city traffic should any accidents occur that were caused by car drivers shocked by the godless message (cf. Hinz 2011, 20m45s–21m25s). In Regensburg the bus was actually stopped by a municipal enforcement officer (“Ordnungsamt”). But as the campaigners had anticipated a situation like this and had registered the bus as a formal demonstration, they had a police escort and were able to produce an official permit, to which the

GERMANY: THE ATHEIST BUS ADS CAMPAIGN

165

officer only replied that he, personally, would never have permitted something like this (cf. ibid., 25m00s–25m47s). Frerk reports also that many common people reacted with outrage and indignation to the bus’ message. In East German Dresden, for example, a man reportedly exclaimed: “Something like this has not even happened in the gdr! It must be discarded… this filth!” (Frerk 2009, p. 38).17 For many the bus constituted a provocation and people questioned its legality. In one instance, the campaign’s flyers and stickers were ripped apart and thrown across the table. Other than this incident, more vandalism did not occur though. Frerk suggests that the majority of strong verbal reactions were due to the fact that the religious were not used to being in the defensive and did not know how to react once their beliefs were called into question (cf. ibid., p. 40). On the other hand, in some cities that the campaigners thought of as “Christian bastions,” like Stuttgart and Munich, the bus was greeted with friendly faces (cf. Lubbadeh 2009c), and, surprisingly, not only did the Bavarian city of Augsburg have a Christian gospel group “singing against the bus,” but so did the supposedly nonreligious Eastern Chemnitz. The campaigners observed that, contrary to common expectation, some East German regions were places of lively evangelical missionary activity (cf. Hinz 2011, 26m15s–26m50s). The second noticeable reaction to the German version of the atheist bus campaign also evokes the impression of a budding religious market in Germany. Only one day before the bus tour was kicked off in Berlin, Carsten Frerk received a phone call from a representative of the German branch of the evangelical Campus Crusade for Christ (Campus für Christus), who announced that they were going to accompany the atheist tour with their own bus (cf. ibid., 12m30–13m25s). They had rented a white luxury coach and equipped it with the slogan “Knowing God” (“Gott kennen”) and the question “And what if He does exist…?” (“Und wenn es ihn doch gibt…?”). They took the same route through the country as the atheist bus, stopped in the same places, and – in a manner similar to the atheist bus campaign – arranged for small events around the bus, albeit in cooperation with local churches. Just as with the atheist campaign, the missionaries’ tour was privately funded through donations. This, as well as the fact that, according to their own report, the “Knowing God” campaign was praised by the Chair of the Evangelical Church in Germany (ekd) (cf. Bartsch 2009), may give off the impression that it has become easier for ‘free churches’ to gain access to the German religious market. For other reasons, though, this impression may be misleading. 17

This passerby refers to the era of the communist German Democratic Republic (gdr), which was characterized by state atheism. German original: “Das hat es ja noch nicht einmal in der ddr gegeben! Der muss weg… dieser Dreck!”

166

MASTIAUX

For one, as stated above, the ‘official’ churches are financially privileged by the state. More importantly, though, picking up the idea of a bus tour itself may be taken as testimony to the inferior status of a free church as Campus für Christus. Doug McAdam argues that it is particularly excluded groups or challengers of the elite who are in special need of seizing political – or discursive (cf. Gamson 2007, p. 249) – opportunities in order to gain access to the arena which they are excluded from (cf. McAdam 1982). The spokesperson of the “Knowing God” tour claimed that Campus für Christus welcomed the atheist bus campaign, as it constituted an invitation to all citizens to think about God, and that they wanted to offer their own experiences of knowing God to that dialogue (cf. ead 2009). But it does not seem unlikely that they also anticipated the media attention the atheist bus would generate and welcomed it therefore as a chance to make their own church more widely known. At least, their own bus promoted their website, www.gottkennen.de, very prominently. Therefore, with its own bus tour, this free-church quite ingeniously seized a discursive opportunity, something the Roman Catholic and the Evangelical Churches in Germany, who also claimed to welcome a discussion about God, had no need for. Accordingly, at first, the organizers of the atheist bus tour were not only surprised but also angry that Christian missionaries were to “steal” a project which they had put a lot of effort into – and even considered suing them for it (cf. 3sat 2009, 4m10–4m30s) or, in a less serious manner, putting a poster on the back of their own bus that would read: “Christian persecution – we are being persecuted by Christians” (cf. Hinz 2011, 13m55s–14m03s). But they did not do either. Instead they learned to accept the Christians’ “embrace with foul breath,” as they later called it (Lubbadeh 2009c). Still, at the outset of the campaign, one of the participants feared: “Now it’s going to come across in the media as if we were tearing up each other and as if it were a proselytizing competition” (3sat 2009, 2m55s–3m01s),18 and, indeed, this is how, as a result, the campaign was reported on in several media outlets. Even though the campaigners had emphasized in all of their press statements that they did not plan – nor expect to be able to – deconvert any theists to atheism, but, instead, wanted to encourage the nonreligious and point out that morals are not exclusive to religion, in tv features and newspaper articles they were mostly shown in direct opposition of the Christian bus and often portrayed as being on a “crusade” (“Kreuzzug”) or out to “proselytize to atheism” (cf. e.g. lj 2009, wdr 2009). An extreme example is a feature story for national newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung by 18

German original: “Jetzt wirkt das ja in den Medien, als ob man sich hier zerreißt und als ob das’n Missionierungswettstreit ist.”

GERMANY: THE ATHEIST BUS ADS CAMPAIGN

167

Renate Meinhof, a journalist with a degree in theology. She reports that, despite the Christian call to evangelization, the campaigners of Campus für Christus would shy away from saying that they would like to proselytize, whereas “(t)he atheists don’t have a problem with proselytizing. They set up their book table in front of the bus, and whenever any passersby would like to discuss the godless message on the bus, they have an eloquent respondent for them” (Meinhof 2009).19 Also, speaking for an assumed public, she writes: “One wonders what kind of strange humanism this is, which condemns the deeply human need for faith like a demon, as well as the questioning into why there is anything instead of nothing” (ibid.).20 Despite portrayals as that of Meinhof, in retrospect, the secular campaigners also saw an advantage in the presence of the Christian bus (cf. Frerk 2009, p. 40). Philipp Möller conceded that the media need antagonists in order to tell a coherent story and that this is what they were given. Consequently, the atheist bus campaign may have received even more attention than it would have without the other bus, even though this meant having to endure more “nerve-wracking” and “pointless” face-to-face discussions about the existence or non-existence of a God than it would have otherwise (cf. Möller 2014). 7.4

Response Three: The Shaping of a New Social Movement

Apart from the presence of the Christian bus, the media attention which the German atheist bus campaign received can be interpreted as the result of two factors. On the one hand, it followed directly from the earlier media interest in the uk atheist bus ads campaign and, in connection with this, in the phenomenon of New Atheism. The bus campaign, both in England and in Germany, was commonly interpreted as a continuation and a striking expression of New Atheism (cf. Zenk 2012, p. 39). On the other hand, the willingness of the media to report on the German campaign may also be seen as the result of an earlier mobilization that had taken place within this country’s secularist movement. In the wake of New Atheism, actors from within this field had been able to gain “standing” (Gamson 2007) in parts of the German media, who thus had 19

20

German original: “Die Atheisten haben mit der Mission keine Probleme. Sie bauen ihr Schriftentischchen vorm Bus auf, und wenn Passanten diskutieren wollen über das, was da Gottloses auf dem Bus steht, bekommen sie ein wortgewandtes Gegenüber.” German original: “Ein merkwürdiger Humanismus ist das, denkt man, der das zutiefst menschliche Bedürfnis nach Glauben wie einen Dämon verdammt, das Fragen, warum überhaupt etwas ist und nicht nichts.”

168

MASTIAUX

become more willing to report on their activities and projects.21 The resulting media attention granted to the bus campaign as well as the particular way that the campaign was carried out in Germany, I argue, led to further mobilization, integration, as well as differentiation of the country’s freethought-­ secularist movement. This may be seen as the third major result of the atheist bus campaign. For the second half of the 20th century, the landscape of organized freethought and secularism in Germany consisted mainly of a number of locally active “worldview organizations” (“Weltanschauungsgemeinschaften”) with roots in the 19th century free-religious movement. For historical reasons they were set up as congregations, many of which had banded together in umbrella organizations such as the Dachverband Freier Weltanschauungsgemeinschaften (dfw, Umbrella Association of Free Worldview Congregations) or the Bund für Geistesfreiheit Bayern (BfG, Freethought Association of Bavaria). The German Freethinkers set themselves apart from the free-religious early on and, after having been re-founded after wwii, split into a communist and a socialdemocratic wing. It was only in 1976 that the Internationaler Bund der Konfessionslosen und Atheisten (ibka, International League of the Nonreligious and Atheists) was founded in Berlin: the first German secularist organization not to consider itself a worldview congregation, but a political advocacy group for the nonreligious, agnostics, and atheists. In 1993 another important development in this field was the post-reunification move of the social-democratic wing of the German Freethinkers to unite with a number of other free-religious and humanist organizations to form the Humanistischer Verband Deutschlands (hvd, Humanist Association of Germany), also headquartered in Berlin. In the name of “applied humanism,” it became active in the fields of social care and education and, as long as existent privileges are not cut, either already benefits from or demands the same subsidies and rights as those granted to the churches. These organizations, which entertained only lose connections with each other, constituted the field of organized freethought and secularism in Germany up until the early 2000s. They comprised no more than 20,000 members altogether and were hardly known to the general public (cf. Fincke 2002). This only changed in 2004, when the Giordano-Bruno-Stiftung (gbs, Giordano Bruno Foundation) appeared on the scene. The foundation was started on the initiative and assets of Herbert Steffen, a former entrepreneur, who had become the benefactor of church critic and historian Karlheinz Deschner (cf. Block 2006). It set out to develop, popularize, and defend a secular ethics 21

For a more detailed analysis of this mobilization process within the German secularist movement, see Mastiaux (2016, forthcoming).

GERMANY: THE ATHEIST BUS ADS CAMPAIGN

169

that integrated scientific findings with humanist values and to fight infringements on individual liberties. Following this aim, the foundation was able to bring together a number of acclaimed scientists, philosophers, and artists on its advisory board and, after the launch of its Manifesto of Evolutionary Humanism,22 to attract some media interest with the help of professional public relations strategies and a number of unusual projects. These included the staging of a so-called “religion-free zone” (“Religionsfreie Zone”) during the Catholic World Youth Day festival in Cologne in 2005, the founding of the Zentralrat der Ex-Muslime (Central Council of Ex-Muslims), introduced at the Federal Press Conference, and the launch of the Humanistischer Pressedienst (hpd, Humanist Press Service) website in cooperation with hvd, both in 2006. Carsten Frerk, the author of two books dealing with the wealth and finances of the churches in Germany, became its first editor in chief. By the time the New Atheism made the news (2006–07) and became “the hot topic in Germany” (Zenk 2012, p. 38), activists of the Giordano Bruno Foundation had already established some media contacts on their own and stood ready to fulfill the new journalistic demand for atheists. Two years later these contacts helped the German bus campaign to attract media coverage from early on and to grow into an incident of “cognitive liberation” (McAdam 1982) for large parts of the country’s freethought-secularist movement. Apart from the media coverage, the realization of the campaign itself helped to advance the integration of the movement. Through his job as Editor in Chief of the Humanist Press Service as well as other functions, Carsten Frerk had established personal contacts to secularist organizations throughout the country. In the planning stages of the bus tour he approached local chapters of ibka, Jugendweihe Deutschland,23 and BfG, in addition to others, and asked them to plan the local events in the towns where the bus would make a stop. This motivated activists to work together across organizational borders in booking attractive parking locations, usually in front of local sights, arranging lectures or stand-up comedy, planning sightseeing tours, and staffing book tables and informational booths. Also, Möller reports, the bus worked as “a small atheist magnet that was thrown into the cities,” as local newspaper reports about its visit brought together isolated nonbelievers, who learned for the first time that there was an atheist activist scene in their hometowns. As 22 23

Manifest des evolutionären Humanismus (Schmidt-Salomon, 2005). Jugendweihe Deutschland is an organization that arranges “Jugendweihen” (“Youth ­Consecrations”), a secular coming of age ceremony. It originated in the free-religious movement, but today is popular particularly in East Germany, where it was adopted and practiced by the gdr state.

170

MASTIAUX

a result, informal meet-up groups as well as local chapters of the gbs were formed in several cities (cf. Möller 2014). Yet, the bus campaign also sparked some dissent within the larger field of secularism and freethought. The Humanist Association of Germany (hvd) in particular denied any cooperation.24 Frerk sees the reason for this resistance in the organization’s focus on social services and in its preference not to be disturbed in its own circles (cf. Frerk 2009, p. 37f). Well before the start of the bus campaign and in reference to hvd’s dependence on public funding, Michael Schmidt-Salomon of the Giordano Bruno Foundation argued: “In this context, we should not ignore the fact that some secular organizations, due to their stronger institutional involvement, have to pay more respect to the ‘majority opinion’ and therefore have greater trouble identifying with the elucidating irreverence of New Atheism” (Schmidt-Salomon 2009, p. 31).25 Yet, Frieder Otto Wolf, president of the hvd, argued that the bus campaign’s open denunciation of god-belief would hurt the aim of working against radical capitalism, technocracy, and environmental destruction, which a compassionate humanism shared with progressive religious people: Bus campaigns for the propagation of godlessness may be easy to come up with and may be fun for some of the nonreligious – but what may be achieved by them, bearing in mind the actual existence of atheistic right-wing radicals, is less than clear. We, as organized humanists, can, in view of the current social crisis, not take responsibility for this kind of fun guerilla, as this would impede alliances which are sorely needed.26 wolf 2009

24 25

26

This is true only for the hvd on the federal level. Some local chapters – such as in ­ amburg – did participate in the bus campaign. H German original: “Wir sollten in diesem Zusammenhang keinesfalls übersehen, dass einige säkulare Organisationen aufgrund ihrer stärkeren gesellschaftlichen Einbindung größere Rücksicht auf die ‚herrschende Meinung‘ nehmen müssen und insofern auch größere Schwierigkeiten mit der aufklärerischen Respektlosigkeit des neuen Atheismus haben.” German original: “Bustouren zur Propagierung der Gottlosigkeit mögen ja einfach zu denken sein und manchen Konfessionslosen richtig Spaß machen – aber was dadurch gesellschaftlich bewirkt werden mag, ist angesichts der durchaus existierenden atheistischen Rechtsradikalen durchaus nicht klar. Wir als organisierte HumanistInnen können aber in der gegenwärtigen Gesellschaftskrise eine derartige Spaßguerilla nicht verantworten – denn dadurch werden Bündnisse erschwert, die wir dringend brauchen.”

GERMANY: THE ATHEIST BUS ADS CAMPAIGN

171

Philipp Möller of the bus campaign approves of the diversity of approaches within the movement. He argues that to some degree this was intentional, since the plurality of nonreligious people as well as divergent goals, such as criticism of religion and positive humanist action, could only be reached with a variety of organizations who utilized different strategies (cf. Möller 2014). Still, Carsten Frerk is grateful that the German bus campaign was planned and carried out by many individuals who were not part of organized freethought and secularism. Working independently together on a campaign gave them the freedom to act without being tied to the varying associations’ resolutions, charters, or dominant leaders. He believes that, to some degree, this is what characterizes the young face of New Atheism and also what made the German variant of the atheist bus ads campaign a success, despite all initial obstacles (cf. Frerk 2009, p. 37f). 7.5 Conclusion The German variant of the atheist bus ads campaign was unique for the combination of three factors: the denial of all municipal transport companies to carry an atheist message on their vehicles, the resulting promotional tour ­throughout the country with a privately rented bus which was accompanied by an antagonistic Christian bus, and, finally, the cooperation within the freethought-secularist movement and its further integration by working together during this event. All these factors relate to the immediate development of the campaign as it was taking place. Yet, are there any long-term consequences that followed from the campaign? It is not clear yet whether Berlin’s bvg’s and other transport companies’ resolutions to no longer accept religion or worldview related advertising will withstand the test of time. In the late summer and fall of 2009, for example, the Humanist Press Service reported about Christian missionary posters in Berlin’s underground stations. Some of the billboards, commissioned by a “Christian Billboard Service,” were found in districts with a high percentage of Muslim immigrants and claimed in Turkish that “Jesus Christ” was “your Savior” and that one should read the Bible. Confronted with the issue, bvg claimed that the responsible advertising agency had not yet cancelled all contracts with some longstanding clients, but that they would see to it in the future (cf. c.f. 2009). In December of the same year, Frankfurt’s municipal transport company vgf refused to accept a poster by the Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland (ekd) that was meant to emphasize the religious meaning of Christmas. vgf

172

MASTIAUX

justified their decision with the resolution from March not to accept any religion or worldview related advertising. This denial caused some local political uproar, a petition by the Social Democrats to have the resolution revoked, and a demand by the Christian Democratic mayor to allow exceptions to the rule – presumably in favor of the established churches (cf. kath.net 2009). Even though the red double-decker bus has long since resumed its service as a sightseeing vehicle in Berlin, it remains in common memory as a distinctive symbol of a self-confident or ‘aggressive’ atheism and criticism of religion. Its picture – alongside that of the bus by Campus für Christus – has found its way into a textbook for Catholic religious education classes used in public schools in several German states (cf. js 2011). Also, a Protestant educator has issued a g­ uideline for dealing with the atheist bus campaign in religious education classes. She argues that this topic should help to enable the students to have “an informed discussion with other religious faiths and nonreligious worldviews, to deal with criticism of religion, and to demonstrate the legitimacy of faith” ­(Zimmermann 2013).27 This has granted the campaign a lasting visibility, which the organizers say they had never expected; nor did they expect the bus to become an icon of New Atheism, especially considering the fact that its slogan was actually agnostic (cf. c.f. 2011). Overall, the organizers view their campaign as a lasting success because, as they state on their website and in other publications, “15–20 million people in Germany were reached by the campaign,” “500,000 people saw the bus in the streets,” “5,081 gods were denied,” “4,186 of which are considered jealous and punitive,” “371 thank-you notes were received from nonbelievers” and “26 from believers.” While most of these specifications are based on estimates, the final one is particularly vague and modest, but important to the organizers and meant to emphasize that the aim of the campaign was to raise awareness, not to proselytize: through the bus campaign in G ­ ermany the organizers claim that “0 believers were turned to atheism” (cf. ibid.). References 3sat. 2009. “Atheismus on Tour: Unterwegs im Namen des Nicht-Glaubens.” (TV report). In: Kulturzeit, 3sat, 06/02/2009. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nhe2PqYim1A.

27

German original: “Sich mit anderen religiösen Glaubensweisen und nicht-religiösen Weltanschauungen begründet auseinandersetzen, mit Kritik an Religion umgehen sowie die Berechtigung von Glauben aufzeigen.”

GERMANY: THE ATHEIST BUS ADS CAMPAIGN

173

Bartsch, Ingmar. 2009. “Pressemeldung Nr.19/2009.” In: Gottkennen.de. Presseinfos. http://tour.gottkennen.de/presse.shtml. Block, Patricia. 2006. “Herbert Steffen – Im Dienst der Sache.” In: diesseits 75, pp. 14–15. Cavuldak, Ahmet. 2013. “Die Legitimität der hinkenden Trennung von Staat und Kirche in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland.” In: Pickel, Gert and Oliver Hidalgo (eds.): Religion und Politik im vereinigten Deutschland. Wiesbaden: Springer, pp. 307–35. C.F. 2009. “Klarheit bei Berliner Verkehrsbetrieben?” In: Humanistischer Pressedienst, 09/07/2009. http://hpd.de/node/7654. C.F. 2011. “Was macht eigentlich… die Buskampagne?” In: Humanistischer Pressedienst, 05/30/2011. http://hpd.de/node/12415. EAD. 2009. “Und wenn es ihn doch gibt…” In: Die Evangelische Allianz in Deutschland, 05/30/2009. http://www.ead.de/nachrichten/nachrichten/einzelansicht/article/ und-wenn-es-ihn-doch-gibt.html. Erhardt, Jana. 2009. “Die gottlose Botschaft.” In: Handelsblatt, 03/18/2009. http://www .handelsblatt.com/technik/forschung-innovation/geisteswisseschaften/atheisten -die-gottlose-botschaft/3137120.html. Fincke, Andreas. 2002. Freidenker – Freigeister – Freireligiöse. Kirchenkritische Organisationen in Deutschland seit 1989. EZW-Texte 162. Berlin: Evangelische Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen. Frerk, Carsten. 2009. “Die atheistische Buskampagne.” In: MIZ – Materialien und Informationen zur Zeit 02/2009, pp. 35–40. Gamson, William A. 2007. “Bystanders, Public Opinion, and the Media.” In: Snow, ­David A., Sarah A. Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi (eds.): The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 241–261. Heiser, Sebastian. 2009a. “Kommentar: Verkehrsbetriebe – Völlig neben der Spur.” In: taz, 03/18/2009. http://www.taz.de/!31958/. Heiser, Sebastian. 2009b. “BVG lässt Gott sitzen.” In: taz, 04/09/2009. http://www.taz .de/1/archiv/print-archiv/printressorts/digi-artikel/?ressort=ba&dig=2009%2F04% 2F09%2Fa0111&cHash=40bb7a5b6609a35bd 28ef0b626ea8089. Hinz, Ricarda. 2011. “Gottlos glücklich. Die Geschichte der Buskampagne.de.” Movie published on: Youtube.de. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4NjzkXr4rM. Js. 2009. “Christliche Antwort auf Atheisten-Bus im Schulbuch.” In: pro – Christliches Medienmagazin, 01/14/2011. http://www.pro-medienmagazin.de/kultur/buecher/ detailansicht/aktuell/christliche-antwort-auf- atheisten-bus-im-schulbuch-83133/. kath.net. 2009. “Evangelische Kirche darf in U-Bahnen nicht werben.” In: kath.net, 12/12/2009. http://www.kath.net/news/24893. Kasperowitsch, Michael. 2009. “‘Gottlos’ fährt in Nürnberg kein Bus.” In: Nürnberger Nachrichten, 04/22/2009. http://www.nordbayern.de/nuernberger-nachrichten/ nuernberg/gottlos-fahrt-in-nurnberg-kein-bus-1.697361.

174

MASTIAUX

Laaff, M. 2009. “Buskampagne gegen Gott: Atheisten starten Roadtrip.” In: taz, 05/07/2009. http://www.taz.de/!34303/. Lj. 2009. “Gottlose kommen in Fahrt.” In: Abendzeitung, 06/13/2009. http://www .abendzeitung-muenchen.de/inhalt.muenchen-gottlose-kommen-in-fahrt .bc3d0ac9-ddf2-4cfb-8a19-eb7e58082182.html. Lubbadeh, Jens. 2009a. “Kampagne in deutschen Städten: Werbung für ein Leben ohne Gott.” In: Spiegel Online, 03/11/2009. http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/ natur/kampagne-in-deutschen-staedten-werbung-fuer-ein-leben-ohne-gott-a -612635.html. Lubbadeh, Jens. 2009b. “Atheisten-Kampagne: Deutsche Städte wollen keine gottlosen Botschaften auf Bussen.” In: Spiegel Online, 03/18/2009. http://www.spiegel.de/ wissenschaft/natur/atheisten-kampagne-deutsche-staedte-wollen-keine -gottlosen-botschaften-auf-bussen-a-614080.html. Lubbadeh, Jens. 2009c. “Atheisten-Tour mit Hindernissen: Missionare verfolgen Ungläubige quer durch Deutschland.” In: Spiegel Online, 06/18/2009. http://www .spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/atheisten-tour-mit-hindernissen-missionare -verfolgen-unglaeubige-quer-durch-deutschland-a-631342.html. Mader, Thomas. 2009. “Atheismus-Debatte: Gottlose im Atheisten-Bus auf Tour – die Kirche hält dagegen.” In: WAZ, 06/05/2009. http://www.derwesten.de/region/rhein _ruhr/gottlose-im-atheisten-bus-auf-tour-die-kirche-haelt-dagegen-id340041.html. Mastiaux, Björn. (2016, forthcoming): “New Atheism and the German Secularist Movement.” In: Cotter, Christopher, Philip Quadrio and Jonathan Tuckett (eds.): New Atheism: Critical Perspectives and Contemporary Debates. Dordrecht: Springer. McAdam, Doug. 1982. Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930–1970. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Meinhof, Renate. 2009. “Wenn Gottlose auf Touren kommen.” In: Süddeutsche. de, 06/12/2009. http://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/atheisten-auf-bustour-wenn -gottlose-auf-touren-kommen-1.461590. Möller, Philipp. 2014. Interview of author with Philipp Möller. Conducted in Berlin, 10/17/2014. Mühlbauer, Peter. 2009. “Dialektik der Weltanschauungswerbung.” In: Telepolis, 03/18/2009. http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/29/29947/1.html. Neumann, Peter. 2009. “Kein Gott, kein Glück.” In: Berliner Zeitung, 03/20/2009. http:// www.berliner-zeitung.de/archiv/die-bvg-hat-werbung-von-atheisten-abgelehnt --aber-christen-in-u-bahnen-unterschriften-sammeln-lassen-kein-gott--kein -glueck,10810590,10627814.html. Schmidt-Salomon, Michael. 2005. Manifest des evolutionären Humanismus. Plädoyer für eine zeitgemäße Leitkultur. Aschaffenburg: Alibri. Schmidt-Salomon, Michael. 2009. “Vom neuen Atheismus zum neuen Humanismus?” In: humanismus aktuell 23, pp. 27–34.

GERMANY: THE ATHEIST BUS ADS CAMPAIGN

175

Sponholz, Katja. 2009. “Atheisten-Initiative: Gottloses Gefährt geht auf Tour.” In: WAZ, 05/07/2009. http://www.derwesten.de/wr/wr-info/gottloses-gefaehrt-geht-auf-tour -id570610.html. Stark, Rodney and Finke, Roger. 2000. Acts of Faith. Explaining the Human Side of Religion. Berkeley: University of California Press. Steinmaier, Daniel. 2009. “Das ist doch Doppelmoral.” In: Jungle World 14/2009, 04/02/2009. http://jungle-world.com/artikel/2009/14/33747.html. Wandt, Christina. 2009. “Atheisten-Bus steuert Essen an.” In: WAZ, 05/03/2009. http:// www.derwesten.de/staedte/essen/atheisten-bus-steuert-essen-an-id340035.html. WDR. 2009. “Die neue Atheisten-Missionierung.” (TV report). In: WestArt, WDR Fernsehen, 06/09/2009. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EgcGMtLdZM. Wiedemeier, Isabelle. 2009. “Atheismus: Deutschland will keine gottlosen Busse.” In: news.de, 05/07/2009. http://www.news.de/panorama/830492317/ deutschland-will-keine-gottlosen-busse/1/. Willemsen, Roger. 2009. “Warum machen Sie das? Glaubenssache.” In: Zeit Magazin 23/2009, 06/02/2009. http://www.zeit.de/2009/23/Willemsen-Moeller-23. Wolf, Frieder Otto. 2009. “Für Humanismus mit richtigem Biss…” In: Humanistischer Pressedienst, 05/06/2009. http://hpd.de/node/6977. Zenk, Thomas. 2012. “‘Neuer Atheismus’: ‘New Atheism’ in Germany.” In: Approaching Religion 2, 1, pp. 36–51. Zimmermann, Mirjam. 2013. “Von religionskritischen ‘Buskampagnen’, ‘Heiliger Scheibe’ und Besserwissern wie ‚Susi Neunmalklug’ – Didaktische Anregungen zur Auseinandersetzung mit medialer Religionskritik.” In: Theo-Web. Zeitschrift für Religionspädagogik 12, 1, pp. 164–81. http://www.theo-web.de/zeitschrift/ausgabe -2013-01/13.pdf. .

chapter 8

Ireland: Unbelievable? The Atheist Bus Campaign in Ireland Leon Dempsey This chapter will discuss the manifestation of the Atheist Bus Campaign (abc) in the Republic of Ireland (hereafter referred to as Ireland) which took place in April 2009. It will begin by discussing the contemporary religious landscape in Ireland in order to provide a context for the discussions that will follow. Here an overview of the religious composition of the population of Ireland will be provided along with a discussion of the role that religion plays not only in the personal lives of the population but also in the functioning of the Irish state itself. The chapter will then proceed to discuss the Irish manifestation of the abc which took the form of a poster campaign organised and run by the Humanist Association of Ireland (hai). This section of the chapter will be largely based upon an interview that I conducted with one of the directors of the hai, Mr. Brian Whiteside, which took place in April 2014 in Dublin.1 It will provide details of the campaign itself and will also examine the limited reactions the campaign received. It will also discuss the substance of the message of the campaign and situate it within a broader question of the role of religion in the functioning of the contemporary Irish state. The chapter will conclude with a brief discussion about the campaign, offering an evaluation of it based on the limited data available. The discussion will also consider what the need for such a campaign in contemporary Ireland can tell us about the role that religion continues to play in the functioning of the Irish state in the twenty-first century. 8.1

The Religious Landscape in Ireland

From the period of the 1990s onwards, Ireland has witnessed many transformations that have reshaped it from being a country traditionally associated with poverty, large scale emigration and the dominance of the Catholic religion to the place that it is today. The Ireland of 2014, despite the effects of the recent 1 Consent was obtained to use Mr Whiteside’s name in the text.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004328532_009

IRELAND: UNBELIEVABLE? THE ATHEIST BUS CAMPAIGN

177

global and domestic economic crises, remains a relatively affluent country. The widespread emigration of the past gave way to inward migration which has caused the demographics of Irish society to change immensely. Another change witnessed over the last few decades was in the religious landscape of Ireland; this was not caused solely by immigration as these shifts in belief, and lack thereof, are to be found throughout Irish society. Regarding the position of Catholicism specifically; the religion has, historically, played a large role both in the private lives of the population and also in the functioning of the Irish state due to the influence of the Catholic Church, as an institution, upon the governance of Ireland. What follows in this section of the chapter is a very brief discussion of some of the changes that have occurred in Ireland vis-à-vis religion. This is not intended to be a comprehensive account of these changes but rather a way to contextualise the discussion that will occur later in the chapter about the Irish manifestation of the Atheist Bus Campaign. In terms of religion, the popular perception of Ireland is that it is a country dominated by Catholicism and this perception is by no means unfounded. At the time of the last Census in 2011 84.2 percent of the population residing within the Irish state identified themselves as Catholic;2 of this approximately 3.8 million respondents identified themselves as being Irish, (the total population of the state was recorded by the Census as being 4,588,252). Figures such as these continue to give credence to the perception, both within Ireland and beyond its borders, that the country is a Catholic one; this view is, however, problematic. In contemporary Ireland, as Table 8.1 demonstrates,3 the population identifies with a plethora of religious affiliations, along with nonreligious identifications, specifically atheist and agnostic. Historically, albeit on a much lower level when compared to today, the population of Ireland has not been as ‘Catholic’ as is often perceived; minority religious populations such as Protestant and Jewish populations have resided in Ireland for centuries.4 Our focus here is on contemporary Irish society, however, and its present religious landscape. Despite the apparently overwhelming ‘Catholic-ness’ of the population residing in Ireland as suggested by the Census figures, these numbers should not be viewed as an indicator of the levels of religiosity of the population in general. It is important to note that the Irish 2 http://www.cso.ie/en/census/census2011reports/census2011thisisirelandpart1/ (accessed 24/ 09/2014). 3 Table was generated using “Population Usually Resident and Present in the State (Number) by Ethnic or Cultural Background, Sex, Religion and Census Year,” cso website www.cso.ie. 4 For one discussion see: B. Fanning, 2012, Racism and social change in the Republic of Ireland (second edition). Manchester: Manchester University Press.

178 Table 8.1

DEMPSEY 2011 Census, Ireland, religious and nonreligious identities/affiliations by population

Religious and nonreligious identities by population Roman Catholic Church of Ireland, England, Anglican, Episcopalian Muslim (Islamic) Orthodox (Greek, Coptic, Russian) Other Christian religion, n.e.s. Presbyterian Apostolic or Pentecostal Hindu Buddhist Methodist, Wesleyan Jehovah’s Witness Lutheran Protestant Evangelical Atheist Baptist Agnostic Jewish Pagan, Pantheist Mormon Lapsed (Roman) Catholic Society of Friends Baha’i Brethren Other stated religions (3) No religion Not stated

3831187 124445 48130 44003 39652 22835 13876 10302 8355 6280 6024 5048 4263 3972 3751 3219 3393 1675 1883 1202 1268 899 507 309 13305 256830 68668

Census does not attempt to measure levels of religiosity, rather it simply asks respondents to record what they consider their religion to be. It does not try to ascertain whether those individuals who profess a religious affiliation practice their religion with any degree of regularity, nor does it attempt to measure the actual beliefs of individuals by asking questions which would attempt to ascertain this in some manner. For example; the Census does not ask respondents about belief in a deity or belief in an afterlife. As Catholicism has historically

IRELAND: UNBELIEVABLE? THE ATHEIST BUS CAMPAIGN

179

played such a large role in the formation of individual and collective Irish identity many Irish people consider themselves to be Catholic in a cultural sense, as one component of their Irish identity alongside others such as an attachment to the Irish language or indigenous Irish sports. In this sense ‘Catholic’ cannot be viewed as a label by which people proclaim their religious affiliation, or something which informs their religious practices, assuming they engage in any; instead it is something many Irish people view as an intrinsic element of being Irish. The influence of religion in Ireland is not only confined to the individual level, it also plays a role in the functioning of the Irish state itself. Ireland may be considered to be, nominally at least, a secular republic where no official state religion exists, nor is one religion given prominence over others. Catholicism was constitutionally afforded a ‘special position’ until a referendum in 1972 removed this provision. Prior to the result of this referendum, the Article 44 (which relates specifically to religion) contained the following subsections:5 2° The State recognises the special position of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church as the guardian of the Faith professed by the great majority of the citizens. 3° The State also recognises the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Methodist Church in Ireland, the Religious Society of Friends in Ireland, as well as the Jewish Congregations and the other religious denominations existing in Ireland at the date of the coming into operation of this Constitution. The referendum’s passing resulted in article 44 taking the following form: 1. The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion. 2. 1°  Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen. 2° The State guarantees not to endow any religion. 3° The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.

5 “Referendum Results 1937–2013,” available from http://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/ Voting/Referenda/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,1894,en.pdf (accessed 24/09/14).

180

DEMPSEY

Despite this change to the Irish constitution other religiously (specifically Christian) inspired elements remain; these include the language used in certain parts along with several provisions contained within the document. To illustrate this some examples which can be found in the constitution will be briefly discussed; these relate to abortion and blasphemy. After the eighth amendment to the Irish constitution in 1983 a provision was placed into the document which affords equal right to life to the unborn and the mother6 which has resulted in Ireland having one of the strictest abortion regimes in Europe. A right to travel to other jurisdictions for the purpose of procuring an abortion is constitutionally protected, as is providing information on abortion services in other jurisdictions. The procedure itself, however, is highly restricted in Ireland to the point where it essentially cannot occur unless a woman’s life, rather than health alone, is in immediate danger due to the pregnancy. Even in these circumstances it is extremely problematic as recent high profile cases attest.7,8 This issue is a very complicated one, and at times an extremely emotive and divisive issue in Ireland, yet it serves to demonstrate that religiously-based understandings inform certain aspects of the legal system in the country as these laws are in line with the Catholic belief that life begins at the moment of conception and therefore must be protected from that point onwards. The following extract from the constitution shows the text of the provision in question: Article 40.3: 3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right. This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state. This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state. 6 “Eighth Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1983,” available from http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1983/en/act/cam/0008/print.html (accessed 24/09/14). 7 See for example Shane Harrison’s piece for bbc News “How Savita Halappanavar’s death called attention to Irish abortion law,” available from http://www.bbc.com/news/world -europe-22204377 (accessed 18/09/14). 8 See for example Henry McDonald’s article for the Guardian newspaper: “Woman forced to give birth by caesarean after being denied abortion,” available from http://www.theguardian .com/world/2014/aug/17/ireland-woman-forced-birth-denied-abortion (accessed 18/09/14).

IRELAND: UNBELIEVABLE? THE ATHEIST BUS CAMPAIGN

181

Another example of the influence of religion on the Irish constitution is the prohibition on blasphemy which can be seen in the following extract (emphasis added): Article 40.6: 1° The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality: i. The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions. The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State. The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law. This prohibition has been in place since the enactment of the constitution in 1937; however, it was not legislated until the 2009 Defamation Act when it became an offense punishable by a fine of up to €25,000. Despite its presence in the constitution since the early days of the Irish state, attempts to prosecute people for this offense have been minimal. One case came before the Irish Supreme Court in 1999 when a private citizen brought a case of blasphemy against a national newspaper as a result of a cartoon which appeared on its pages. This attempt proved unsuccessful; ultimately the Court ruled that “[t]he task of defining the crime is one for the Legislature, not for the Courts. In the absence of legislation and in the present uncertain state of the law the Court could not see its way to authorising the institution of a criminal prosecution for blasphemy against the Respondents.”9 The section of the 2009 Act relating to blasphemy attempts to remedy this legal ambiguity by providing a legislative definition of blasphemy; it states that blasphemy occurs when: (a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage. 9 The Supreme Court decision can be viewed at http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/1999/5 .html (accessed 24/09/14).

182

DEMPSEY

The Act also contains a number of situations where a defence of the use of ‘blasphemous’ material can be made on the basis of its “genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value.”10 This effectively renders the legislation impotent in terms of obtaining a prosecution given the wide ranging, and simultaneously vague, nature of the exemptions. The argument from the government at the time for enacting this legislation was that since the constitution prohibits blasphemy, legislation must be enacted to enable prosecution of the offense.11 An alternative approach to dealing with this would have been to hold a referendum to remove the reference to blasphemy. This option, however, was not taken. Unfortunately discussing these two examples in greater detail is beyond the scope of this chapter, and the brief synopsis provided should in no way be taken as an authoritative discussion of these matters, particularly the abortion issue where, as was noted, the legal situation is complex and the opinions of the Irish public vary considerably on this controversial topic. The purpose of raising these issues has been to draw the reader’s attention, particularly those unfamiliar with these aspects of the Irish constitution, to the role that religion plays in the functioning of the Irish state. We will now turn to the main focus of this chapter, the Atheist Bus Campaign in Ireland, the story of which is intrinsically linked to the influence that religiously inspired constitutional provisions have on the functioning of certain aspects of the Irish state. 8.2

The Atheist Bus Campaign in Ireland

8.2.1 Background The goal of the Irish manifestation of the campaign varied from its United Kingdom (uk) counterpart and this goal influenced the message that was used during the Irish version of the Atheist Bus Campaign. Unlike what appeared on the posters placed by the British Humanist Association (bha) on buses in London,12 the message of the Irish campaign did not directly challenge the general public in Ireland to re-evaluate their beliefs in a deity and alter their lifestyle accordingly. Rather, the message presented by the Humanist 10 11

12

From “Defamation Act 2009,” available from http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/ pub/0031/print.html#sec36 (accessed 18/09/14). A discussion from a parliamentary committee meeting on March 31, 2010, can be found at the following link: (Dermot Ahern was the Minster for Justice, Equality and Law Reform at this time): http://debates.oireachtas.ie/JUJ/2010/03/31/00003.asp#N125 (accessed 25/09/2014). “There’s Probably no God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life.”

IRELAND: UNBELIEVABLE? THE ATHEIST BUS CAMPAIGN

183

Association of Ireland had a very specific political point to make: through this campaign the hai wanted to draw attention to a source of inequality that exists in Ireland, created by the Irish constitution, that, as the hai believe, places nonreligious individuals in Irish society at a direct disadvantage to those who profess belief in a god. The poster was entitled “Unbelievable” and carried the following message under that headline:13 Did you know that you must take a religious oath in order to become a judge – or the President – in Ireland? In effect, this rule disbars up to 250,000 Irish citizens who are non-believers. It’s discrimination. It’s unfair. And it has to end. The message refers to oaths that must be taken by an Irish president upon assuming office, new members of the judiciary and also by new members of the Council of State,14 however the hai’s campaign was limited in its focus to the oaths which judges and presidents are required to take. The requirement to take these oaths can be found in the Irish constitution15 and the following extracts show the wording of the oaths which must be taken by an individual upon becoming president, a member of the judiciary and a member of the Council of State respectively (the emphasis in each is my own): Article 12 (8) The President shall enter upon his office by taking and subscribing publicly, in the presence of members of both Houses of the Oireachtas,16 of Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Court, and other public personages, the following declaration: “In the presence of Almighty God I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will maintain the Constitution of Ireland and uphold its

13

14 15 16

A photograph showing the poster can be viewed on the hai’s website via the following link: http://humanism.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/unbelievable.jpg (accessed 05/08/14). The Council of State is an advisory group that meets on an ad-hoc basis in order to provide guidance to the Irish president during certain decision making processes. The document can be accessed online via http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/en/constitution/index.html (accessed 23/05/14). The Oireachtas is an Irish language term which refers to “Ireland’s national parliament or legislature. It consists of the President of Ireland and two Houses: Dáil Éireann [the parliament, lower house] and Seanad Éireann [the senate, upper house].” This definition is taken from http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/education/glossary/#O (accessed 15/07/2014).

184

DEMPSEY

laws, that I will fulfil my duties faithfully and conscientiously in accordance with the Constitution and the law, and that I will dedicate my abilities to the service and welfare of the people of Ireland. May God direct and sustain me.” Article 34 (5) 1° Every person appointed a judge under this Constitution shall make and subscribe the following declaration: In the presence of Almighty God I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my knowledge and power execute the office of Chief Justice (or as the case may be) without fear or favour, affection or ill- will towards any man, and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws. May God direct and sustain me. Article 31 (4) Every member of the Council of State shall at the first meeting thereof which he attends as a member take and subscribe a declaration in the following form: In the presence of Almighty God I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfil my duties as a member of the Council of State. A nonreligious alternative is unavailable for those who do not wish, for whatever reason, to take these religiously based oaths. This is unlike the case, for example, when members of the public are being sworn onto a jury; in this situation an individual can request to make a nonreligious affirmation in place of making the default religiously based declaration (the default declaration is prefaced with “I swear by Almighty God […]”).17 The hai believe that the requirement to take a religiously-based oath is discriminatory and generates inequalities since nonreligious individuals in Irish society are placed at a disadvantage of which religious individuals are not; this is what the hai wished to highlight through their poster campaign. Furthermore, the hai believe that not only is the wording of the oaths something which discriminates against non-believers, it is also something that discriminates against religious people who do not come from a Christian background due to the heavily Christiancentric nature of the Irish constitution. One example highlighting this Chris17

Juries Act 1976 18 (1) available from http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1976/en/act/pub/0004/ sec0018.html (accessed 26/04/2014).

IRELAND: UNBELIEVABLE? THE ATHEIST BUS CAMPAIGN

185

tian orientation can be seen in the opening sentence of the preamble to the document: “In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred.”18 The hai’s goal in the context of the campaign was, and indeed still is, to achieve a “very level playing field”19 in Ireland whereby the nonreligious are treated as equals in all aspects of Irish society and barriers preventing this, such as the requirement to take a religiously-based oath, are removed thus resulting in the emergence of an inclusive, secular Ireland. On several occasions during our conversation Mr. Whiteside elaborated what he meant when he spoke of the secularisation of Irish society. His definition can be summarised as religious neutrality whereby the Irish state removes references to any religion in the public sphere in order to reflect the diversity of belief, and unbelief, in contemporary Irish society, thus creating a neutral public space in which all can participate. At one point in the interview whilst discussing his interpretation of the term he explained that he felt that Irish society in general takes the view that secularism equates to “anti-religious” outlooks and that it does not “[…] quite get the meaning of the word secular.” The poster campaign ran on the dart rail service in Dublin which serves a limited part of Dublin city and county along with parts of a neighbouring county; essentially the service is confined to areas along the eastern coastline. As a result, the potential audience for the poster and its message from the outset was limited given the rail service’s geographical placement along with its usage as a means of transportation for commuters in Dublin.20 However, as a result of the financial constraints they were operating under (the total budget for the campaign was limited to €7,000)21 the hai felt that conducting the campaign on this particular mode of transport would provide the greatest possible exposure of the message. The organisation’s budgetary constraints also meant that the hai had to confine their campaign to the Dublin area rather than attempting to spread it to other parts of the country. 18 “Preamble” Constitution of Ireland, available from http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/en/ constitution/index.html (accessed 29/07/2014). 19 These are Mr Whiteside’s words. 20 In 2012 for example, usage of the dart accounted for approximately 15.4% percent of public transport journeys in the Greater Dublin Area. See http://www.nationaltransport. ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/National-Transport-Authority-Annual-Report-2012.pdf p. 26, (accessed 15/07/2014), for total rail users (including dart and other rail), and http:// www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Heavy-Rail-Census-SummaryNovember-2013.pdf , p. 4, (accessed 15/07/2014), for the percentage of dart users in that year. 21 Irish Times, “Humanists launch campaign against judicial oaths,” April 4, 2009.

186

DEMPSEY

As we have seen, the message carried on these posters differed from the message that members of the public in London witnessed on the sides of buses during the uk campaign. The message commuters in Dublin were faced with was one which highlighted a very specific requirement which affected an extremely small section of the Irish population. In a newspaper article from the time of the campaign, Ann James, then secretary of the hai, was asked why the message was taking this form rather than something similar to the version used in the uk campaign. The reason she gave was that “I think in some ways, because of the way this country is, we might try a less direct method to raise awareness. We want people in every corner to have awareness of what it is, and that if they want to be a humanist they can. I think it’s fun, other people might say it’s a bit too much.” This statement would appear to suggest that the hai were operating under a self-imposed constraint based upon a perception they held of how “this country is.” I raised this with Mr. Whiteside in order to ascertain if the organisation had indeed censored the message of its campaign in any way. He told me that the hai did not feel that they were operating under any constraints when formulating the message for the campaign; again he stressed that the reason behind choosing the message used for the campaign was its simplicity. At this point in our conversation Mr. Whiteside, unprompted by me, drew attention to the differences between the hai and an Irish-based atheist organisation called Atheist Ireland.22 He noted that the hai is not an atheist organisation, and despite common goals which are shared between the two organisations, primarily the goal of a secular Ireland, there are key differences between the two groups. The example he used was the approach taken by the two groups in achieving what they would see as a secular Ireland. He described Atheist Ireland’s approach as being a “slightly harder edged way” in contrast to the hai’s “more softly softly” approach. The hai’s rationale for choosing the message was very straightforward and practical: the message was simple and to-the-point. During the interview I asked Mr. Whiteside to elaborate on why they chose this particular theme for the campaign rather than highlight an issue which might resonate more with the general public in Ireland, such as the place of religion, primarily, but not exclusively, the Catholic Church, in the Irish education system.23 He explained 22 23

Further information can be found on the organisation’s website http://www.atheist.ie/ (accessed 24/06/14). Schools in Ireland, including publically funded schools, are run by patrons, generally religious orders, the majority of which are Catholic. These patrons are afforded the right to run the school in accordance with their own particular ethos; this includes instructing children on religious matters and preparing them for religious ceremonies such as First

IRELAND: UNBELIEVABLE? THE ATHEIST BUS CAMPAIGN

187

that the decision to focus on the oaths was due to it being a subject about which the hai could articulate a succinct message for the purposes of a poster campaign. Had they chosen a different message, one that, for example, raised questions about the Irish education system they believed that (a) the general public may not see an issue with the system as it currently operates and as a result there would be little interest on the public’s part in affecting change in this area, and; (b) that an obvious case, as perceived by the hai, of discrimination against the nonreligious in the form of the oath requirements, would be a cause for concern amongst the general public. So the message was not only chosen for its simplicity; the hai also felt that this message would resonate with the population in general. They believed that members of the public, regardless of their familiarity with the constitutional requirements for a religiously-based oath, would agree with their position that it is an unjust requirement and ought to be changed. Indeed, Mr. Whiteside felt that people would be “outraged” upon being confronted by this fact, a fact which he felt that many people would not have given thought to previously. This is part of the reason why the headline “Unbelievable” was chosen for the poster; the hai felt the general public in Ireland would indeed view this requirement as being ‘unbelievable’ in the context of modern, twenty-first century Ireland. The choice of headline was also a subtle pun drawn from the fact that the association itself is comprised of people who do not believe in the existence of a deity. Another reason behind the choice of message the hai used in the campaign was that, from their perspective, it served a purpose. While they agreed with the sentiment of the bha’s message, the hai felt that it did not contain a practical element. For the Irish version of the campaign the hai wanted to use a message which would provoke the audience to consider a tangible issue which could potentially affect a large proportion of those living in Ireland, rather than using an abstract message which simply enjoined people to consider b­ elief, or Communion. In short, religion plays a large role in schools in Ireland and, in the vast majority of cases, this means Catholicism. The following report published by the Department of Education and Skills discusses primary schools (children start primary school in Ireland generally between the ages of 4–5 in which they spend 8 years before moving onto secondary school), and provides some further information on the matter of school patronage and issues surrounding it in the context of diversity in Irish society. It is recommended as a starting point for the interested reader rather than a definitive source of information: “Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector – Progress to Date and Future Directions,” available from http://www.education.ie/en/Press-Events/Conferences /Patronage-and-Pluralism-in-the-Primary-Sector/Progress-to-Date-and-Future-Directions-Forum-on-Patronage-and-Pluralism-in-the-Primary-Sector.pdf (accessed 18/09/14).

188

DEMPSEY

lack thereof, as was the case in the uk version of the campaign. There was no input from the bha in any aspect of the campaign in Ireland. The hai simply took its inspiration from its uk counterpart’s campaign and, as we have seen, utilised one element of an ongoing campaign of their own to formulate a message for the posters it would place on display in train carriages in Dublin. 8.2.2 Reactions to the Campaign The reactions to the hai’s poster campaign were extremely limited. In terms of legal responses to the campaign there simply were none. Social responses were very limited and essentially took the form of contact made by the general public directly to the hai. The organisation had set up a dedicated mobile telephone number which was printed on the posters and Mr. Whiteside was tasked with taking the calls and text messages directed to this number. I asked Mr. Whiteside if it was possible to share any details with me about the feedback they received from the general public; he was unable to provide me with either statistics of the number of calls and text messages received, or the exact nature those responses took. He did, however, state that the amount of responses were very limited and less than the hai had envisioned receiving. He told me that some of the positive responses took the form of individuals commending the organisation for raising the issue. The negative responses sent by members of the public were less flattering with some warning the hai that they “[…] would end up in eternal flames in hell.” Mr. Whiteside noted that measuring the success of a campaign such as this is difficult. One potential measure which he did draw my attention to was the organisation’s membership numbers. These increased slightly during the course of the campaign, however he did not go into detail about the reasons these new members had for joining so the campaign may, or may not, have been a factor influencing their decision. As there was no direct legal response to the campaign and its objective, the discussion that will follow will examine how the issue of the inequalities generated by the presence of these oaths could be resolved and how it has been perceived to date by those with the power to affect such change. As the requirement to take the oaths is prescribed by the Irish constitution the only way this can be changed is by a referendum to alter the sections of the constitution which dictate that the oaths must be taken. All changes to the Irish constitution must be approved by referendum, the right to vote in these is restricted to Irish citizens and the only requirement for the acceptance or rejection of the proposal is that a majority of valid votes opt for one of the positions presented on the ballot paper. Any proposed changes to the Irish constitution will ultimately be tabled by the government of the day prior to being put forward to the people for their decision.

IRELAND: UNBELIEVABLE? THE ATHEIST BUS CAMPAIGN

189

A recent novel avenue for the general public to engage in the process of constitutional change was an initiative in the form of a body called the Constitutional Convention which was brought about by the present government24 as part of their attempts at reforming the political system in Ireland. One of the purposes of the Convention was to involve members of the general public in affecting this reform. Submissions were open to the public, but the scope of the Convention was limited to a number of topics which can be viewed on its website.25 The hai did make a submission26 to the Convention which called for a change in the requirement for religious based oaths; however, this was not included as a matter for deliberation by the Constitutional Convention. As we can see, the options for an organisation such as the hai to lobby for a change in the Irish constitution are quite limited. In the absence of large scale public support for a change in the requirement for the oaths, and the subsequent pressure such support may place upon politicians to act, the alternative for an organisation such as the hai is to lobby politicians directly, which is something the hai have done in relation to the oaths. The organisation has met with government ministers on several occasions over the last number of years as part of the ‘Structured Dialogue Process’. This is a process by which the Irish government, stemming from article 17.3 in the Lisbon Treaty of 2007,2728 creates a space where representatives of various religious and philosophical groups in Ireland can interact with government representatives.29 The first occasion on which the hai met with government representatives as part of this process was in 2007. Several ministers were present at this meeting including then Taoiseach (the Irish language equivalent of Prime Minister) Bertie Ahern and Minister for Justice Brian Lenihan. During the course of this meeting the organisation discussed with the government delegation issues surrounding certain laws and state customs which place the nonreligious at a disadvantage, including the matter of the oaths. Mr. Whiteside mentioned during his account of the meeting that the Minister for Justice’s “reaction initially” 24 25 26 27 28

29

The government, at the time of writing in September 2014, comprises of a coalition of two political parties, Fine Gael and the Labour Party, elected in 2011. https://www.constitution.ie/Convention.aspx (accessed 18/09/14). https://www.constitution.ie/SubmissionDetails.aspx?sid=341c627f-82c7-e211-a5a0 -005056a32ee4 (accessed 18/09/14). The Lisbon Treaty is a European Union treaty. K. Houston, 2009, “The Logic of Structured Dialogue between Religious Associations and the Institutions of the European Union,” Religion, State and Society, Vol. 37 Nos. 1–2:207–222. For a brief report on a recent meeting see: Irish Times “Government, church to meet in ‘structured dialogue process’” January 18, 2013.

190

DEMPSEY

was that he was aware of judges who were not religious and had no difficulty taking the oath, and upon Mr. Whiteside’s remarking that he believed this to be disingenuous on the part of those judges the Minister conceded that Mr. Whiteside’s observation was correct. From the exchange, Mr. Whiteside believes there was some acceptance on the part of the politicians present at the meeting that the situation vis-à-vis the oaths was an issue but that there was no real willingness on their part to do anything to change the situation. A subsequent meeting took place in May 2011, by this time a change in government had occurred and the new Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, and then Minister for Justice Alan Shatter were present. At this meeting Mr. Whiteside, speaking in the context of the presidential election which would take place in October of that year, asked those present “[…] how embarrassing will it be for our country if we elected a president who then said ‘I’m terribly sorry I can’t take up office because in all conscience I can’t take a religious oath because I’m not a believer’.” The question was met with silence and the reaction from the ministers present was limited to the Taoiseach instructing the Minister for Justice that he had “[…]better make a note of that.” During this part of the interview I asked Mr. Whiteside if the hai had received any reactions from political figures about the 2009 poster campaign. He told me they had not and attributed this to the passage of time between the campaign and the next meeting the organisation had with politicians, which meant that the matter simply did not arise. 8.3 Discussion The preceding account has illustrated the form the abc took in Ireland and the limited attention it appears to have received from various parts of Irish society. In this concluding section we will examine how the manner in which the campaign was conducted may have affected its reception in Ireland. It will also discuss the wider issues raised by the campaign and situate this campaign within the wider question of the how religion continues to influence the functioning of the Irish state. The manifestation the abc took in Ireland was in the context of the ongoing campaign by the hai for an inclusive Ireland where religious and nonreligious members of Irish society are treated as equals by the state and all individuals are free from constraints placed upon them as a result of their belief, or lack thereof. Specifically, a goal of the hai is to help shape an Ireland where nonreligious individuals are not denied opportunities solely because of their lack of belief. As we have seen, the campaign’s primary goal was to explicitly draw

IRELAND: UNBELIEVABLE? THE ATHEIST BUS CAMPAIGN

191

attention to the fact that the nonreligious are, at least hypothetically, disbarred from holding certain positions in the Irish state solely because of the explicitly religious nature of parts of the Irish constitution. The hai believed that the message would resonate with members of the general public, however the campaign, as we have seen, appears to have made little impact which raises the question of why this was the case. The campaign was constrained from the outset by its modest budget of €7,000. This limited the campaign in terms of its lifespan, geographic location and reach. There was minimal traditional media exposure generated by the campaign; a small number of articles appeared in one of the main national broadsheet newspapers, The Irish Times, one of which was an opinion editorial written by Brian Whiteside.30 However, aside from these pieces and a letter31 written in response to Mr. Whiteside’s opinion editorial which took issue with the use of the word “oath,” suggesting they are instead declarations – to which Mr. Whiteside replied,32 there appears to have been little other coverage, or even mention, of the campaign outside of a small number of discussions on internet message boards.33 No other forms of media, such as social media, were utilised in the campaign. This lack of exposure naturally limited the potential audience for the message and, as we have already seen, the hai received minimal responses from the general public which may suggest this was the case. While it is possible that the message simply was not seen by enough people given its limited exposure, it is also possible that the message did not generate a sufficient level of engagement from the population to cause a greater response either directly to the hai or in other areas such as discussions in the national press. The issue which inspired the campaign is one small part of a wider problem with the Irish constitution and its influence on the functioning of the Irish state. The overarching question which this raises is why, despite the changes that have occurred, and are continuing to occur in Irish society, does the influence of a specific religion remain on the constitution and by extension, the Irish state? Whilst it would be convenient to simply blame political inertia for the reluctance to challenge the status quo, the blame cannot be solely placed upon politicians. As we have seen, the hai witnessed in their interactions with 30 31 32 33

Irish Times, “Equality for the nonreligious is long overdue,” March 31, 2009. Irish Times, “Equality for the nonreligious,” (letters page), April 9, 2009. Irish Times, “Equality for the nonreligious,” (letters page), April 13, 2009. See for example: “hai Dart Campaign” http://www.atheist.ie/phpBB3/viewtopic.php? f=34&t=2163, and “Humanist Judicial Oath Campaign,” http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/ showthread.php?t=2055547844 (accessed 16/09/14).

192

DEMPSEY

government ministers, from two different governments, an acknowledgement that a problem exists in relation to the oaths but this acknowledgement appears, for now at least, to have been the end of the matter. The issue of the oaths was not included as one of the items for the agenda of the Constitutional Convention (2012–14); this being the most recent situation where some attempt to challenge the necessity of these oaths could have been made. So this leaves the matter in a similar situation to how it was before the campaign took place; the oaths are still required and will still be taken as the need arises. Problems surrounding the taking of the oaths are not hypothetical either, as was explained earlier in the chapter, politicians the hai spoke to appear to have been aware of nonreligious individuals taking the oaths upon becoming members of the judiciary. Furthermore, a question relating to taking the oath did arise prior to the Council of State’s first meeting after the formation of the present government. Then Tanaiste (the Irish language equivalent of deputy prime minster) Eamon Gilmore, who is on record as being an agnostic, was required to take the relevant oath in order to participate in his first Council of State meeting in 2013. Mr Gilmore sought legal advice on the matter but ultimately took the religiously-based oath.34 The oaths are just one example from the constitution which highlights the influence religion has upon the document and how this can, and does, generate inequalities in Irish society. This issue the hai focused on is not the only example of this influence, as we have seen. The wording of the document is, in parts, explicitly religious and specifically Christian. However, the influence of religion does not simply affect the language of the constitution. This influence shapes the laws of the Irish state in certain matters and it does so regardless of the levels of religiosity amongst the population of the state. It does not take into consideration what other religions teach on the particular issue, nor does it consider the impact this has upon those who are atheist, agnostic, have no religious belief or simply do not wish to have religiously inspired rules and regulations governing aspects of their lives. The constitution, therefore, is not only a potential source of inequality for the small numbers who will enter the judiciary or achieve the office of president, as the hai’s campaign sought to 34

For further details see the following articles written by Emer O’Kelly and published in  the Irish Independent newspaper: “Gilmore’s dilemma shows why we need new ­con­stitution,” and “Oath has no place in true Republic of Ireland,” available from http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/emer-okelly-gilmores-dilemma-shows -why-we-need-new-constitution-29470987.html, and http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/emer-okelly-oath-has-no-place-in-true-republic-of-ireland-29674363.html, respectively (accessed 17/09/14).

IRELAND: UNBELIEVABLE? THE ATHEIST BUS CAMPAIGN

193

highlight, but rather this religious influence has the potential to affect, and indeed does very materially affect, a greater proportion of the Irish population. When viewed in isolation, the requirement for religiously based oaths may seem both unnecessary and something that can be easily remedied. However, when taken in the context of the constitution as a whole, it is just one example of how the historical influence of religion upon the functioning of the Irish state continues to affect the lives of all those, be they religious or not, living in twenty-first century Ireland. Given the increasing religious heterogeneity of the population of Ireland, including those who profess no religious belief, issues such as the subject of the hai’s poster campaign have the potential to arise again as people in Ireland attempt to negotiate the structures of a state where certain laws have, to varying degrees, been influenced by a religion which, while still significant, no longer holds the dominant position it once did in Irish society. References Atheist Ireland. 2009. HAI Dart Campaign. (forum thread), internet, available from http://www.atheist.ie/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=2163 (accessed January 26, 2015). Boards.ie. 2009. Humanist Judicial Religious Oath Campaign. (forum thread), internet, available from http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055547844 (accessed January 26, 2015). British and Irish Legal Information Institute. 2015. Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions: Corway v. Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Limited [1999] IESC 5; [1999] 4 IR 485; [2000] 1 ILRM 426 (July 30, 1999), internet, available from http://www.bailii.org/ie/ cases/IESC/1999/5.html (accessed January 26, 2015). Central Statistics Office (CSO). 2015. Census 2011 This is Ireland (Part 1). Internet, available from http://www.cso.ie/en/census/census2011reports/census2011thisisirelandpart1/ (accessed January 26, 2015). Convention on the Constitution, The. 2015. Submission by The Humanist Association of Ireland: Removal of Discriminatory Requirements of Religious Declarations. Internet, available from https://www.constitution.ie/SubmissionDetails.aspx?sid=341c627f -82c7-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4 (accessed January 26, 2015). Department of Education and Skills. 2015. Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the ­Primary Sector: Progress to Date and Future Directions. Internet, available from http://www.education.ie/en/Press-Events/Conferences/Patronage-and-Pluralism -in-the-Primary-Sector/Progress-to-Date-and-Future-Directions-Forum-on-Patronage- and-Pluralism-in-the-Primary-Sector.pdf (accessed January 26,2015).

194

DEMPSEY

Department of Environment, Community and Local Government. 2015. Referendum  Results 1937–2013. Internet, available from http://www.environ.ie/en/ LocalGovernment/Voting/Referenda/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad, 1894,en.pdf (accessed January 26, 2015). Fanning, B. 2012. Racism and social change in the Republic of Ireland (second edition). Manchester: Manchester University Press. Harrison, S. 2013. “How Savita Halappanavar’s death called attention to Irish abortion law.” Internet, available from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-22204377 (accessed January 26, 2015). Houses of the Oireachtas. 2015a. Criminal Proceedings Directive and Defamation Act 2009: Motions. Internet, available from http://debates.oireachtas.ie/JUJ/2010/03/31/00003 .asp#N125 (accessed January 26, 2015). Houses of the Oireachtas. 2015b. Glossary (O). Internet, available from http://www .oireachtas.ie/parliament/education/glossary/#O (accessed January 26, 2015). Houston K. 2009. “The Logic of Structured Dialogue between Religious Associations and the Institutions of the European Union.” Religion, State and Society. Vol. 37 Nos. 1–2:207–222. Irish Statue Book. 2015a. Eighth Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1983. Internet, available from http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1983/en/act/cam/0008/print.html (accessed January 26, 2015). Irish Statue Book. 2015b. Defamation Act 2009. Internet, available from http://www .irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0031/print.html#sec36 (accessed January 26, 2015). Irish Statue Book. 2015c. Constitution of Ireland. Internet, available from http://www .irishstatutebook.ie/en/constitution/index.html (accessed 26/01/15). Irish Statue Book. 2015d. Juries Act, 1976. Internet, available from http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1976/en/act/pub/0004/sec0018.html (accessed 26/01/15). Irish Times, The. 2009a. “Equality for the nonreligious is long overdue.” Print edition. Irish Times, The. 2009b. “Humanists launch campaign against judicial oaths.” Print edition. Irish Times, The. 2009c. “Equality for the nonreligious (letters page).” Print edition. Irish Times, The. 2009d. “Equality for the nonreligious (letters page).” Print edition. Irish Times, The. 2013. “Government, church to meet in ‘structured dialogue process’.” Print edition. McDonald, H. 2014. “Woman forced to give birth by caesarean after being denied abortion.” Internet, available from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/17/ ireland-woman-forced-birth-denied-abortion (accessed January 26, 2015). National Transport Authority. 2015a. Annual Report 2012. Internet, available from http://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/National-Transport -Authority-Annual-Report-2012.pdf (accessed January 26, 2015).

IRELAND: UNBELIEVABLE? THE ATHEIST BUS CAMPAIGN

195

National Transport Authority. 2015b. Statistical Bulletin Number: 04, November 2013: Summary of Heavy Rail Census Carried out in November 2012. Internet, available from http://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Heavy-Rail-Census -Summary-November-2013.pdf (accessed January 26, 2015). O’Kelly, E. 2013a. “Gilmore’s dilemma shows why we need new constitution.” Internet, available from http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/emer-okelly-gilmores -dilemma-shows-why-we-need-new-constitution-29470987.html (accessed January 26, 2015). O’Kelly, E. 2013b. Oath has no place in true Republic of Ireland, internet, available from http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/emer-okelly-oath-has-no-place-in -true-republic-of-ireland-29674363.html (accessed January 26, 2015).

Websites

Atheist Ireland. http://atheist.ie/ (accessed January 26, 2015). Boards.ie. http://www.boards.ie/ (accessed January 26, 2015). Central Statistics Office. http://www.cso.ie/en/index.html (accessed January 26, 2015). Convention on the Constitution, The. https://www.constitution.ie/ (accessed January 26, 2015). Humanist Association of Ireland, The. http://humanism.ie/ (accessed January 26, 2015).

chapter 9

Italy: The Regimentation of Identity and Belief; Research Notes on Nonreligious Campaigns in Italy Vanni Gasbarri He says gods like to see an atheist around. Gives them something to aim at. terry pratchett, Small Gods

⸪ “Bad news: There is no God. Good news:1 you won’t need one.” This is the claim of a bus advertising campaign promoted by the nonreligious (Italian) Union of Atheists, Agnostics and Rationalists (uaar) which was supposed to be launched in the beginning of 2009 in Genoa, Liguria Region, Italy. Things did not go as originally conceived. According to uaar spokesperson Dr. Franco Ajmar, the bus ad campaign was originally devised to address the delicate issue of the representation of nonreligious communities within a national soundscape dominated by religious voices. In his words, the campaign aimed at granting “visibility to atheists and atheism, [as] only the views of those who subscribe to a faith are heard, be them Christian or Muslim [while] the views of non-believers are not granted any consideration.”2 Ajmar went on to clarify how “non-imposed” ethics, “the typical mark of atheism,” aspires to peaceful co-existence through equitable access to representation.3 uaar chairman Raffaele Carcano underlined the lack of freedom of speech of the nonreligious at a time when the Catholic Church enjoyed ubiquitous presence within the Italian political sphere.4 In a provoking comment to the press, the regional coordinator of uaar, S. Vercoli, noted how the slandering of ‘atheists’ by the Catholic community is often ­tolerated,

1 2 3 4

Note that the word ‘gospel’ translates into ‘good news’ in European languages. Quoted in Valli, 2009. Ibid. See further for a discussion on the regimentation of democratic representation. Celi, 2009.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004328532_010

ITALY: THE REGIMENTATION OF IDENTITY AND BELIEF

197

while the converse would not apply.5 According to a poll by the Genoan newspaper Il Secolo xix, however, 52 percent of responding readers (n=2300) said they were in favour of the uaar campaign.6 Within the panorama of regional and national politics, in fact, Genoa prides itself on a time-honoured antifascist and anticlerical tradition.7 The choice of place for the launch of the ‘atheist bus’ initiative attracted further attention to the top bosses of uaar, as the campaign was announced at a time when the Italian Episcopal Conference (cei) was undergoing a deep fundamentalist turn under the papacy of Benedict xvi,8 and the lead of Chairman Cardinal A. Bagnasco, who is also from Genoa. Father G. Calabrese, head of Genoan Diocesan Cathechism, talked about the explosive potential of the uaar campaign, arging that like any other “frontal opposition” it would be perceived as “a manifestation of intolerance,” as opposed to other poorly specified “methods” that “foster dialogue.”9 Domestic commenters highlighted how choosing Genoa as the starting point for the atheist bus campaign would fuel an existing clash between supporters of conservative Catholic values on the one hand and progressive and radical forces on the other hand. In fact, a gay pride parade was announced to be taking place in Genoa on the thirteenth of June of the same year. To make things possibly more complicated, the chosen date coincided with one of the main Catholic festivals: Corpus Domini (lat.: the Body of Christ). On that day Catholic devotees march on the main streets of Italian cities in a procession headed by parish and government officials. More importantly, Corpus Domini processions are meant to follow a golden reliquary containing the Host (a  white circular unleavened bread blessed during a Catholic Mass, which 5 Alfonso, 2009c. 6 Anonymous, 2009b. 7 There an important connection between the fascist regime and the place of Catholicism within the Italian government in recent Italian history. In 1929, fascist leader B. Mussolini signed the Lateran Treaty with Pope Pius xi, recognising a set of rights to the Vatican state, and established its national borders within the city of Rome. Most importantly, the deal included the recognition of Catholicism as state religion. In spite of the markedly antifascist spirit of the Italian Constitution, the bulk of said pact has not been modified since. However, the clause that set Catholicism as state religion was removed in 1984. As we will see further, in Italy it is common practice to still consider Catholicism as the main cultural organiser, that is the source of cultural traits assumed to be distinctive of national identity. 8 On January 14, 2015, Pope Francis I spoke in favour of religious freedom. During her 2014 Christmas speech, Queen Elizabeth ii paid her respect to believers of religions other than the Christian, as well as to religious ‘nones’. 9 Alfonso, 2009a.

198

GASBARRI

Catholics believe to contain the body of Jesus Christ). For this reason, the festival is the single most solemn Catholic procession of the year, and it is meant to shed the blessings of Christ (represented as small movements describing a cross, and performed, at various times and places, by the highest-ranking clergyman present) over the territory of a Parish or a network of Parishes.10 The announcement of a gay pride parade in Genoa on Corpus Domini day was considered a “manifestation of intolerance” by Catholics, who felt that a lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (lgbt) parade taking place alongside the Corpus Domini procession would be particularily indiscreet. However, the Catholic opposition was not unanimous: Genoan Parish Father Andrea Gallo, co-author of Sopra ogni cosa (2014) (Italian for “Above it all”), a book about Fabrizio de Andrè,11 had recently advocated in favour of lgbt rights during a controversial interview. Father Gallo was already well known as a provocative interpreter of Catholic theology and liturgy. For example, he once included a Mosque in his parish’s nativity scene, as a gesture of radical openness to the religious identity of Muslim immigrants. In a note on the blog of the Bologna Committee for Palestine released on the same year as the bus campaign, he wrote: “[T]ogether with the Islamic brothers and sisters, I would seek laicism, and the routes to avoid confusion between religion and politics. No instrumentalisation, no integralism, no fundamentalism. The welcoming of the Other is at the centre of monotheistic religions.”12 The Italian version of the nonreligious campaign was going to be tested right in the hometown of the (then) chairman of the Italian Episcopal Conference (cei), His Excellence Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco (see above), at a time when even Catholic voices were challenging his authority and leadership. Even though Ajmar was quick to report to the press that this choice of place was meant as a plea for equality, and not as provocation, several parties of political and social influence would interpret it as a full-blown declaration of (religious) war. As keen observers of the human condition might already know, equality is a philosophically challenging concept,13 and so is the representation of ­public 10

Anthropology readers might also interpret the structure of this yearly practice as a statement about the spatial boundaries of Catholic affiliation within the built environment. 11 Genoan song singer-writer denouncing hegemonic expressions of Catholicism within the mediterranean tradition of multiculturalism (Piemme publishers, 2014). 12 Source: http://comitatopalestinabologna.blogspot.it/2009/01. 13 During a recent anthropology seminar, I surveyed the local concepts of equality of about one thousand Italian high-school students. Two main groups of working definitions stood out from the large dataset: (1) everyone is different, and therefore equality cannot exist,

ITALY: THE REGIMENTATION OF IDENTITY AND BELIEF

199

interest (see further). As a result, the original uaar message would never make it to the bus. Ironically, it was neither the cei, nor a conservative political force, but a private company with licence and mandate to manage ads on public spaces who first muffled atheist voices in Genoa: the ‘concessionary’ company igp Decaux. Possibly in response to the mixed reactions of the public, advertisers rejected the text of their clients’ claim, which was deemed at odds with self-disciplinary guidelines, as it might have caused offence to members of religious communities. A new, milder draft of the bus ad campaign was submitted. It read: “The good news is that in Italy there are millions of atheists. The excellent news is that they believe in Freedom of Speech.” The new banner appeared on just one bus, the number 36 departing from Merani square. The tone of this new claim was certainly meeker than the original, and we can safely assume that its content was rather inoffensive. And yet, the bus campaign was shockingly short-lived. At 10:30am of its first day on the roads of Genoa, the bus was taken back to the depot with a flat battery needing technical assistance.14 In spite of their outstanding failure in the capital of Liguria province, members of the uaar from other Italian regions did not give up on the idea of preaching their atheist Gospel. On February 26, 2009, one-hundred 70x100cm banners reading the original uaar message reached Pescara (Abruzzo, Italy), one of the few cities where igp Decaux did not manage advertising spaces. uaar chairmen for the Abruzzo Region Roberto Anzelotti released the following comment: “The ultimate end of this campaign is to let people know about the existence of our association […] so that we can share [the atheist, agnostic, and rationalistic] condition.”15 The opposition of local policy-makers was (again) unanimous and clear. Vice-Mayor of Pescara Camillo D’Angelo told the press that the council was

14 15

and (2) everyone is equal, irrespective of individual differences. The paradoxical picture that emerged from a cohort of non-experts meets the multi-dimensional view of equality proposed by renowned anthropologists. J. Flanagan (1988, quoted in J. Lewis 1992:3), for instance, highlights the difference between “equality of opportunity” and “equality of outcomes.” While in the former case merit plays a fundamental role in the stratification of individuals within communities, individual differences are off-set in the latter. J. Woodburn differentiates between ‘immediate-return’ ideology, where individual differences in merit are flattened and repressed, and ‘delayed-return’ ideology, where hierarchy and authority are accepted as societal values. Certain commenters pushed forward the hypothesis of sabotage, however that was never proven. Anonymous, 2009c. Interestingly, in this case, the uaar considered being atheist, agnostic, and rationalistic to be a “condition,” and not it’s opposite: a disposition.

200

GASBARRI

not informed about the campaign, and that it did not share its contents. When the uaar announced their intention to launch a road banner campaign in the nearby town of Vasto (Abruzzo, Italy), council members Nicola Del Prete (Democratic Party, henceforth, dp) and Domenico Molino (dp) threatened to tear off banners in person in case they ever made it to the roadside.16 In April, when fifty roadside banners reading the stronger version of the uaar claim appeared in Cernusco sul Naviglio (Lombardia, Italy), the then-Mayor Eugenio Comincini (dp) condemned the operation as “offensive to the sensitivity of many.”17 In a note, Bagnasco expressed a view similar to the latter, describing the whole campaign as a “wound to religious sensibility.”18 As the campaign was exported to more Italian towns, judicial prosecution added to political opposition. On June 11, 2009, the Carabinieri (Italian Military Police Force operating on civil grounds) removed banners reading the original uaar message from the roads of Papozze (Veneto, Italy). Manilo Padovan, the 72 year-old uaar representative for the province of Rovigo, was accused of “offending religion” (Articles 403 and 404 of the Italian Penal Code), even though he had regularly paid the tax for advertising on public spaces to the local council, who accepted the payment.19 On the 16th of the same month, paper flyers reading the uaar message which had been posed along a roadway were torn off in Reggio Emilia (Emilia Romagna, Italy) after igp Decaux refused to publish the ad on the banner spaces they managed. In Lanciano, yet another town of Abruzzo, a counter-bus-ad-campaign was launched on March 12. From Lanciano, the Catholic bus ad campaign reached thirteen towns in the provinces of Pescara, Chieti and Teramo on sixty busses. Furthermore, four touring busses spread the same message to several European capitals. It read: “Jesus rose from the dead. Enjoy life with him.” 9.1

Legal Responses

If you have ever watched a game of soccer, you have probably witnessed several interruptions of the game due to infringements of game rules. These interruptions are given different names, depending on what rule of the game they break. In a game whose central idea is to kick a soccer ball, for instance, there are rules about who can hold the ball in the hands (goalkeepers), and where 16 17 18 19

Anonymous, 2009d. Anonymous, 2009e. Carcano, 2009. The lawsuit was later archived with no further legal consequences for Padovan.

ITALY: THE REGIMENTATION OF IDENTITY AND BELIEF

201

(an area delimited by clear marks on the soccer field). When a player who is not the goalkeeper touches the ball, or when the goalkeeper does so outside the designated area, the game comes to a halt. There are clear rules about how to resume the game, and what penalty is assigned to whom. In such cases matters seem quite straightforward. There are, however, other kinds of ‘unlawful’ behaviours that attract a whole new kind of sanction. Imagine, for instance, what would happen if one would purposely hit a supporter (fan) during the game. Such occurrence would give rise to sanctions of a whole new magnitude, reaching well outside the time and space of the game.20 This and other behaviours (like going to bed too late before a match, being caught drunk, using drugs,21 etc.) that challenge the moral sense of public opinion can be sanctioned with life disqualification. In fact, transgressing against the latter type of rules is often taken as a sign of the offender’s ‘bad attitude’ as a person, and not just as a player. And yet, there are attitudes and actions that elicit even stronger reaction: namely, the kind of words, actions, and omissions that show the pointlessness of the system of rules. If offenders of the former kind are ‘cheaters’, the latter are ‘spoilsports’. According to historian of religions J. Huizinga,22 in fact, spoilsports attract the harshest forms of repression, silencing, and annihilation. While cheaters are somehow budgeted for in the ritual and ludic domains of social life, spoilsports threaten its very fabric, as they challenge conventions powered mainly by the fact that they are never discussed. “In the world of high seriousness, too,” wrote Huizinga: the cheat and the hypocrite have always had an easier time of it than the spoil-sports, here called apostates, heretics, innovators, prophets, conscientious objectors, etc. It sometimes happens, however, that the spoilsports in their turn make a new community with rules of its own. The outlaw, the revolutionary, the cabbalist or member of a secret society, 20

21

22

This actually happened, for example, on January 25, 1995, when player Eric Cantona punched and kicked a Crystal Palace supporter, and was subsequently sanctioned with a nine-month disqualification and 120 hours of community service. Even more interestingly, the supporter victim of Cantona’s attack was sentenced to one week of jail time for having provoked his attacker (Retrieved electronically at http://www.ilpost.it/2015/01/25/ eric-cantona-calcio/). This, too, happened, when a Sampdoria (Genoan team) player Francesco Flachi who was caught doing cocaine, and was subsequently sanctioned (see http://www.repubblica .it/2007/05/sezioni/sport/calcio/flachi-squalificato/flachi-squalificato/flachi-squalificato .html). See “Homo Ludens,” 1955.

202

GASBARRI

indeed heretics of all kinds are of a highly associative if not sociable disposition, and a certain element of play is prominent in all their doings.23 Judging from the magnitude of the reactions it elicited, the uaar’s campaign qualifies as a ‘misdemeanour’ of this kind. In fact, it is contended, its reception reached well beyond the arena24 of democracy.25 In an article that resonates with this sense of unbearable disarticulation of time-honoured traditions, journalist M. Lussana maintained that, while Card. Bagnasco would have been working towards interreligious dialogue and religious tolerance, “minority voices” like the uaar “ridicule our roots and the basis of our civilisation [sic.].”26 “([N]early) no one,” Lussana lamented, would “react to defend the majority” or act “in support of our foundations, from natural family to the right to have a faith in a religion different from Islam”27 As illustrated above, igp Decaux had deemed the original message “offensive to moral, civil, and religious persuasions,” quoting articles 10 and 46 of their self-disciplinary code. This almost begs the question of whose persuasions28 we are talking about. That is, what subset of the social manifold can safely be singled-out to represent said persuasions, and what if a relevant subset of nonreligious public deemed any religious creed offensive to moral, civil and/or cosmological persuasions? In theory, the application of this rule would make it difficult for any community bound by any moral orientation to advertise anything at all. Unless, of course, one submits to protecting the interests of one or more against others, which would be (arbitrarily) excluded, which would appear utterly at odds with a country’s (non-)religious pluralism. Journalist and satirist M. Serra soon captured this notable incongruity, explaining that: “The existence of God is a hyper-advertised concept since the dawn of time. It has been said, written, painted, performed, sung, and believed

23 24

25 26 27

28

Huizinga, 1949:12. Technically speaking, representation within a parliamentary democracy is a zero-sumgame, in that citizens’ voices compete for a limited number of representatives in the parliament. See note 3 about the place of Catholicism within the Italian Constitution. Lussana, 2009. Ibid. A discussion about the contributions of Islamic tradition to Italian culture is beyond the scope of the present. However, let us remember the comment of the Italian Muslim Religion Communities’ (Co. Re. Is.) spokesman Y. Di Stefano on the ‘atheist bus’ campaign: “[This is a] sensational, folkloristic, perplexing gesture that is uncalled for,” (Alfonso, 2009b). See further for a discussion on the (so far) poorly defined concept of ‘belief’.

ITALY: THE REGIMENTATION OF IDENTITY AND BELIEF

203

by a multitude of men and women.”29 By underlying the diffusive dimension of (at least some) religious practices, Serra’s provocative insight leads us to consider whether the principle that ad claims should not be offensive to religious persuasions was applied rather unevenly, if not arbitrarily, in that it systematically excluded the bearers of nonreligious persuasions. However, in this case, such exclusion was hardly anti-democratic, as representatives of most political forces (all apart from the Communist, see further) supported the ban on the ‘atheist bus’ campaign. But how are we to understand the silencing of the uaar within the framework of Italian law? We already underlined the fact that Italy has not had any official state religion since 1984. In fact, the fundamental principle of state secularism feature in the Italian Constitution, and it has reached Italian jurisprudence through a number of Constitutional Court sentences (see sentences 203/1989, 117/1979, 149/1995 for a reference). Referring to sentence 117/1979, for example, Carcano observed that “[Italian] constitutional law excludes biases in the defence of free practice of either religious faith or atheism.” During an interview with The Trumpet (the official website of the Philadelphia Trumpet newsmagazine, owned by the Philadelphia Church of God), however, former uaar secretary Giogio Villella said that although the “[Italian] Constitution states there is no state religion,” “actually that is not the case” [emphasis added]. uaar’s national coordinator S. Vergoli called this “antidemocratic attitude.” For this reason, Carcano threatened to sue igp Decaux for what he described a “clear violation of the constitutional right of freedom of speech,”30 although the author could not verify whether or not this was followed by an actual lawsuit. For the sake of the present discussion, it is useful to recall another instance where a similar incongruity can be observed. In 2005, Mrs. Soile Lautsi requested that a crucifix displayed in the state-school classroom in the Italian province of Padua be removed, on the ground that its presence violated the principle of state secularism. After being evaluated by several administrative courts, the case ended in the hands of a Chamber of the Second Section of the European Court of Human Rights, who inquired about the possible violation of article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights and article 2 of the first protocol of said Convention. In 2010, the Italian government appealed to the Grand Chamber of the Court, ultimately resulting in the overturning of former sentence (2011), on the basis that “the country’s majority religion”

29 30

Serra, 2009. Palmer, 2009.

204

GASBARRI

should be accorded “preponderant visibility in the school environment” (Lautsi and Others v. Italy 2011, para. 71), and that the cross excludes no one and of course does not impose or prescribe anything, but merely implies, in the heart of the aims set for education and teaching in a publicly run school, a reflection – necessarily guided by the teaching staff – on Italian history and the common values of our society legally retranscribed in the Constitution, among which the secular nature of the state has pride of place.31 It is noteworthy to say that, on top of losing the lawsuit, Mrs. Lautsi reported being victim to threats, vandalism, and derogatory words of address from Italian politicians. In sight of this, we can safely assume that the religious persuasions that the concessionary company intended to protect by banning the uaar campaign are, in fact, those of Catholic Christians, as they are assumed to represent Italy’s majority religion before the law. 9.2

Social Responses

The announcements of the uaar reached the public in a climate of longstanding clashes between conservative forces, inspired by Catholic values, and progressive voices, advocating for the values of laicism in the Italian Parliament. As it was shown above, however, Italian politics are imbued in a fundamental sense of belonging to the Catholic32 tradition – quite independently from the political and philosophical orientation on parliamentary formations. This peculiarity is likely a mirror of a feature of present day Italians which is well-known to sociologists. In the words of F. Garelli: [The] rarely questioned adhesion to traditional religion is also part of modem-day society, where individuals have freedom of choice and are not bound to external norms. It seems that in this time of fear and uncertainty which lacks the security of previous generations, it is plausible to re-evaluate the faith of our ancestors, which thus continues to be important for many in our own culture. Religion is thus an integral part of our social landscape: it does not call for the adhesion to doctrine or for 31 32

Lautsi and Others v. Italy 2011, para. 15. Note that the adjective ‘catholic’ loosely translates into ‘universal’.

ITALY: THE REGIMENTATION OF IDENTITY AND BELIEF

205

specific involvement but requires the recognition that one belongs to a society where religion has permeated collective identity.33 A second notable anomaly of Italian society is that, contrary to what happens in many other countries, in Italy it is progressive left-wing parties, and not conservatives, who defend the Constitutional right of expression. The comment of Mayor of Genoa Marta Vincenzi (dp) on the uaar campaign is a telling example of both trends: “It is important to defend democracy and secularism34 [It. laicità], not secularity [It. laicismo], in a city with a strong presence of the Church. The ad cannot be censored as its message is not offensive to Christ, Allah, or Buddha. In the absence of offensive content, freedom of speech applies.”35 On the other hand, ‘People of Freedom’ (Catholic, liberal right-wing formation) mp M. Gasparri, then President of the Italian senate, expressed an altogether negative evaluation of the atheist bus: “Freedom of speech is sacred, but the paid ad campaign on atheism hosted on Genoa’s buses appals and saddens.”36 In the same comment he even proposed the launch of a countercampaign based on personal attacks against the (left-wing) administrators of Genoa, along with atm, the public transport company that got involved with the atheist ad campaign (Italian Agency of Journalism, agi). Although this was likely meant as provocation, it goes to show how he understood the uaar campaign as a despicable effort to ridicule and discredit religion altogether, rather than an attempt at diffusing a distinctive minority identity. On a similar note, Gabriella Carlucci, former tv presenter who became mp and vice-president of the Parliamentary Commission for Childhood and Adolescence during Silvio Berlusconi’s leadership of the Party of Liberties (pdl), said that the atheist bus campaign was “absolutely distasteful and out of place,” as it represented an “offensive provocation for many catholic citizens and public transport users that find themselves forced to withstand rant and vulgar irony about their religious symbols.”37 33 34

35 36 37

Garelli, 2007:321. Phrased in these terms, the religious question seems to pivot around the themes of belonging and identity rather than the contents of beliefs. Please note how secularism (an ideology or system of differentiating or allocating religious and secular spheres) is preferred to secularity (a state in which religion is not the primary reference point) (Lee, 2012:135–136). At the same time, representatives of conservative formations expressed opinions critical of both secularism and secularity while in favour of a formal adhesion to Catholic identity and values. Quoted in Alfonso, 2009c. Quoted in Iadicicco, 2009. Quoted in Zinola, 2009a; emphasis added.”

206

GASBARRI

Giorgio Bonacin, chairmen of the Italian Advertising Antitrust Authority and a ‘Alleanza Nazionale’ (a far-right-wing party) mp, entered the theological arena expressing a negative evaluation of the uaar’s stronger claim on the basis that it would be “misleading.”38 Lega Nord (separatist right-wing) mp Edoardo Rixi even advised public transport users not to pay the fare to boycott the uaar’s campaign, and the nine-hundred Genoa bus drivers adhering to the faisa-cisal syndicate39 announced they were ready to fight the campaign through industrial action. Only the Federation of Italian Communist Youth (figc) of Liguria Region Division, backed up the uaar and demanded that igp Decaux review resolution, and that “left-wing political forces supported freedom of speech and expression,” against what they felt was “outright censorship.”40 figci spokesperson A. Viola released the following communication: The fascist-like climate spreading in this Country is getting actually unsustainable. […] The uaar is continuously silenced, and so are the communists: just look at how little attention we receive by the press and tv. This is obscene. We what are the Church and the mysterious Young Italy41 afraid of. Perhaps they fear overt confrontation because they do not trust the solidity of their own arguments?42 9.3 Remarks As mentioned above, the second draft of the Italian atheist bus campaign read: “millions of atheists believe in freedom of speech” [emphasis added]. Before any interpretation of the narratives emerging from the atheist bus, of its reception within the public sphere, and of the strong reactions it elicited at the local level can be attempted, it is useful to first consider the sociological dimensions of power and belief. Among the various definitions of religion generated by anthropologists, R. Sosis wrote, “almost all […] recognize that ‘belief’ in some supernatural agent (spirits, ancestors, ghosts, deities, etc.) is an essential feature, and for

38 39 40 41 42

Quoted in Alfonso, 2009b. An autonomous syndacate for public transport workers. Quoted in Zinola 2009b. Reformist Italy since 2011; faction close to Berlusconi’s ‘The People of Freedom’. Ibid.; emphasis added.

ITALY: THE REGIMENTATION OF IDENTITY AND BELIEF

207

many the primary element, of religion.”43 One might argue that the emphasis on the word ‘belief’ in the uaar’s second ad represents a notable continuity with their religious counterpart. Anthropologist D. Sperber proposes an initial classification of ‘belief’ into two separate ‘psychological categories’: intuitive beliefs and reflective beliefs. Intuitive beliefs are integral part of the ‘architecture of the mind’. They are the result of the capacity of the mind to retain representations acquired via sensory perception, and are common to both humans and other “objects belonging to other natural types.” As such, “in order to hold them as beliefs, we need not reflect – or even be capable of reflecting – on the way we arrived at them or the specific justification we may have for holding them.”44 In turn, reflective beliefs constitute “much of culture, from religion to science,” and derive from the all-human capacity of representing representations (‘meta-representational ability’). To be held as reflective belief, a reflective attitude (ranging from “absolute conviction” to “radical disbelief, with all shade of doubt in between”) must either presuppose the individuation of explicit arguments, or be validated by other beliefs qualifying the source as reliable. Taken in the latter sense, any reference to belief is also a matter of ‘representational’ genealogy – that is, the recognition of certain societal avenues through which contents and sources are considered trustworthy, and of others which are met with several degrees of mistrust. In other words, any system of belief presupposes (and creates) societal narratives of group belonging. Remember how, according to Garelli (see), belonging to a group bound by shared identity does not necessarily imply adeherence to the contents of belief. It is our contention that the process by which belief builds and defends cultural identity pivots around the ‘naturalisation’ of reflective beliefs as intuitive, as if said representational genealogy need neither be understood nor questioned. Social psychologist S. Fieske (2009) explained a similar anomaly by describing the interplay of the four ‘core motives’ of social behaviour -namely: belonging, understanding, trust, and self-development. She observed how belonging and understanding stand in a relationship of dynamic opposition (if not inverse proportionality) as the more we understand a certain social context, the harder it is for us to belong to it. But does the same apply to the kind of belonging which is articulated around disbelief? As we read above, Huizinga predicts that diverging from a system of rules often gives rise to a ‘new community’.

43 44

Sosis, 2003:97. D. Sperber, 1997:67.

208

GASBARRI

In a study conducted among University of Edinburgh students, Christopher R. Cotter laid the basis for an analysis of the kind of social grouping borne out of nonreligion. According to Cotter, five ‘typologies’ of nonreligion can be extrapolated from the narratives of self-descriptions of his respondents – ­namely, the Naturalistic Type, the Humanistic Type, the Spiritual Type, the ­Familial Type, and the Philosophical Type. By cross-referencing the various typologies with the gender of the respondents, for example, Cotter was able to infer some thought-provoking insights into the identity of non-believers: “firstly, the majority of male students are examples of the naturalistic and ­philosophical types; secondly, the majority of female students are examples of humanist and ­spiritual types; thirdly, there are no male examples of the ­familial45 type.”46 However, the patterns of group formation within nonreligion communities seemed a lot harder to unravel: The one identifiable activity which can uncontroversially be labelled as a nonreligious practice is the participation in distinctly nonreligious ­institutions – such as the British Humanist Association. Aside from indications of such group participation, scholars have little choice at present but to rely on a ‘lack’ of ‘religious’ activity indicating ‘non-religiosity’.47 In a study conducted among University of Oxford students, Stephen Bullivant came to the similar conclusion that “‘disbelieving without belonging’ is very much the norm,”48 and that Although the number of atheists is cumulatively very large, outside certain communist and (to a far lesser extent) post-communist countries, atheists rarely constitute more than a small, diffused proportion of a given population. Further, unlike other minority groups studied by sociologists, atheists do not tend, even nominally, to join specifically atheistic organisations. Although such groups exist, these attract only a small ­percentage of those ‘eligible’.49

45

46 47 48 49

This group refers to informants who “consistently told their (non)religious story with reference to their family,” (Cotter 2011:86). Cotter notes how “there are no male examples of the familial type,” (2011:93). Cotter, 2011:93; emphasis in the original. Ibid., 40. Bullivant, 2008:365. Ibid., 364.

ITALY: THE REGIMENTATION OF IDENTITY AND BELIEF

209

According to Bullivant, the low levels of social grouping inspired by ‘atheism’ can be explained as a product of the “decidedly negative connotations” associated with the word ‘atheist’.50 Within Italian society, “where religion has permeated collective identity,”51 the stigma attached to nonreligion became all the more evident, as the uaar emerged as a centripetal force of nonreligion grouping. In turn, this is probably sufficient to understand the cold reception of their statement of ‘belief’. On the other hand, it is not yet clear why the original contention that ‘there is no God’ was effectively and completely silenced, especially within a legal framework that formally guarantees, if not freedom of action, at least freedom of ‘representation’. To understand this point, we will now turn the discussion to the internal workings of power itself. In an illuminating essay on liberal, democratic (‘reformist’), and radical semantics of representation, S. Lukes (2004) argued that there exist three levels, or ‘dimensions’, of power. ‘Mono-dimensional’ (1) power, typically held in liberal doctrines of representation, posits power in individualistic terms. In this sense, to hold a position of power means being able to enforce the will of the individual above all other social forces. In terms of equality, this translates into the view that ‘everybody is different; therefore there can be no equality’ (see above). Historically, the ‘two-dimensional’ (2) view on power is associated with democratic, socialist, communist and social-anarchist political traditions. In terms of equality, it presupposes that “everybody is equal, irrespective of their individual (and contextual) differences” (see footnote 8). When the uaar appealed to the right of freedom of speech, it also referred to this specific take on power. In turn, this explains why the figc and (Democratic Party) Mayor Vincenzi raised their voices in defence of the uaar. Let us also remember that the reformist take on power – and, therefore, on equality – is still bound to representation. The reformist doctrine endorses E.E. Schattschneider’s formula: “organisation is the mobilisation of bias,” where “some issues are organised into politics while others are organised out.”52 Defenders of this view proposed reforms as a means of liberating the ‘real’ interests of people from material barriers to their expression. While, on the one hand, defenders of two-dimensional power battle for an equitable representation of social voices, on the other hand they presuppose 50 Ibid. 51 F. Garelli, 2007:321. See above. 52 The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist’s view of Semocracy in America, (1960:71). New York: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston.

210

GASBARRI

the possibility that said ‘voices’ are articulated both independently and reflectively. This automatically leads us to formulate ‘three-dimensional power’ (3) as the process whereby both preferences and representations are a product of existing power relations. The latter view, which Lukes calles ‘radical’, in fact, contemplates the possibility that the ideas and wants behind reforms are promoted by groups that already possess authoritative voices within the social manifold. In plain English, power (1) is the possibility to act irrespective of an existing system of rules; power (2) is a participatory negotiation of rules by a capillary distribution of ‘representatives’, and; power (3) is the framing of the political discussion, which contains in itself notions of what can and cannot be discussed. Taboo issues are a fitting example of what cannot be discussed, as their removal from the public sphere descends from strictly unspoken conventions.53 This also means that no amount of individual volition or participatory representation can ever pick outside the set of alternatives power (3) makes available – or not available – to them. As a consequence, individual, political and social struggles might even reinforce the conventions established by power (3). If we submit to this view, we also recognise the limits of human creativity in the face of a whole new kind of social constraint. This includes what we previously called ‘intuitive beliefs’. In the words of W. Stoczkowski: The components of […] conceptual constructs, and the structural rules by which they are organised, constitute an important part of our commonsense knowledge, but this common sense is not a catalogue of certainties stemming from the nature of things; on the contrary, it is a cultural construct, rich in arbitrary ideas that are anything but first truths bereft of prior principles.54 At this level, both adherence to and rejection of a belief reinforce its centrality within the public discourse. In a social environment where it is fully accepted that people spend most of their lives indoors, for example, stating one’s 53

54

It can be argued that the same existence of taboos presupposes their cultural transmission, and therefore their articulation in either ritual, private or public contexts. In fact, the transmission of knowledge about ‘tabooed’ issues is subordinated to the possibility to ‘seal off’ the times and spaces in which it occurs. However, avoidance itself can be sufficient to delineate the external boundaries of an object, which are thus individuated without being evoked directly. As novelist J.L. Borges noted, for example, the solution of a riddle is the one word the riddle never mentions. Stoczkowski, 2002:196.

ITALY: THE REGIMENTATION OF IDENTITY AND BELIEF

211

­ reference for a studio apartment instead of a penthouse might initially look p like a substantial choice. The divergent choice of two imaginary individuals might be predicated upon their different perceived housing needs and habits, so that each one might consider her choice completely natural from their respective points of view. However, what can initially be understood as a divergence of preferences reveals a fundamental agreement on sedentary lifestyle when we take into account the arbitrary nature of the starting point, according to which individuals are supposed to choose from a quite narrow pool of alternatives. More generally, while we may reflexively decide whether or not we agree with a set of intuitive beliefs, quite often we have considerably less power over the sampling of the latter. The limited pool of ‘commonsensical’ beliefs is first shaped by silent consensus and then crystallised in language. If this is correct, then the polarity of beliefs does not impact on the cosmology of a community, and subverting the central tenets of a certain cosmological belief might even contribute to the ‘naturalisation’ of its preponderance in public discourse. In structural terms, cosmology acts as cultural organiser: a matrix of symbolic elements around which the human condition is made intelligible. To challenge central tenets of this matrix means to threaten its power (1) and power (2) architecture, but it also increases their salience and memorability by acknowledging them, thus fuelling the regimentation of power (3). This kind of reinforcement without compliance is typical of ‘a-theism’ defined in negative terms. As L. Lee wrote: Whether the definition of it is exclusive or inclusive, negative or positive, whether it means a person who does not believe in God or a person without a belief in God, whether ‘belief’ is the process of relating to the God(s) […] – whichever of these approaches are preferred, ‘atheism’ always relates to God.55 In this (linguistic) sense, disbelief appears as the mere inversion of the relationship between people and God, incapable of editing the monotheistic matrix56 where, for example, the two are logically and semantically separated. In the context of monotheistic cosmology, where “cosmos is created as rupture,” 55 56

Lee, 2012:134–135. This point of view was captured particularly well by Ben Goldacre: “I just don’t have any interest either way, but I wouldn’t want to understate how uninterested I am. There still hasn’t been a word invented for people like me, whose main experience when presented with this issue is an overwhelming, mind-blowing, intergalactic sense of having more

212

GASBARRI

D. Hendelmann notes, “belief [particularly as proposition] may be crucial to cosmic integration, crucial to sustaining cosmos in the face of the rupture posed by the boundary-as-paradox that separates divine from human.”57 As shown by the observation of totemic, animistic, or analogic ontologies, the role played by (dis)belief within (non)religion can be a lot more marginal, as attitudes toward the divine may display a range of diversity so broad to highlight the continuities existing between Catholic theism and Italian atheism. As an example, let us consider the belief system of the Penang people of Borneo. According to R. Needham, informants from this egalitarian hunter-gatherer society have “no formal creed,” with “no other conventional means for expressing belief in their God.”58 Also, this lack of formal theology cannot be blamed to lack of reflexivity. As noted by J. Lewis, egalitarian societies’ “conceptions of the spirit-world” should be regarded “as reflexive discourses on the problems of maintaining egalitarian systems.”59 Please note that egalitarian ideology also has its own taboos, whose infringement is sanctioned through a range of measures. For instance, debt is ‘anathema’ among the Hadza people of Tanzania, and claims to individual authority are met with avoidance and marginalisation.60 On the other hand, religious systems of non-egalitarian societies often naturalise hierarchy and the sacrifice of victims in terms of inescapable necessity.61 In the light of this consideration, the strong societal reactions (ranging from marginalisation and silencing to personal attacks and the denial of fundamental democratic rights) elicited by the atheist bus ad campaign become somewhat more intelligible. Within a legal framework inspired by democratic values such as the Italian Constitution, in fact, one would expect minority voices to find an equitable representation within the public sphere, even when the pervasiveness of religious sense of belonging would be taken into account. Instead, the uaar campaign brought to the fore the existence of a regimen of taboo acting independently of political and social forces. In turn, the latter is rooted in the sense of cosmological belonging, and ‘powered’ by the salience and memorability its elements acquire at particular times, and at the local level.

57 58 59 60 61

interesting things to think about. […] I just don’t care (cited in Williams 2011),” (Cotter 2011:78 [quotation in the original]). Hendelmann, 2008:186. R. Needham, 1972, quoted in A.P. Elkin, 1974. J. Lewis, 1992:4. Woodburn, 2012. See Vanni Gasbarri (2011), submitted.

ITALY: THE REGIMENTATION OF IDENTITY AND BELIEF

213

By promoting disbelief in the same way that religious propaganda does, the uaar has shown a set of contradictions inherent to both democracy and belief whose scope goes beyond the ‘times and places’. In fact, democracy aims at representing public interests through the three-partition of power (legislative, executive, and judicial), but has no means of governing the processes generating those interests. And belief, understood as a propositional attitude of adherence to a self-contained, systematic, and therefore exclusive world system,62 entails a certain degree of marginalisation, as it marks concentric circles of belonging which are precluded to certain ‘others’. This is probably the best sense in which the censorship of nonreligious claims described in this paper vibrates with the overtones of a cautionary tale for people of all political and religious persuasions. References Alfonso, D. 2009a. “Spot sui bus: ‘Dio non esiste’.” Repubblica. Retrieved from http:// genova.repubblica.it/dettaglio/spot-sui-bus:-dio-non-esiste/1574117. Alfonso, D. 2009b. “Ateismo, la polemica corre sul bus.” Repubblica.it. Retrieved from http://genova.repubblica.it/dettaglio/ateismo-la-polemica-corre-sul-bus/1574633. Alfonso, D. 2009c. “Ateo-bus, la rivolta degli autisti ‘No alla scritta, obiezione di guida’.” Repubblica.it. Retrieved from http://www.repubblica.it/2009/01/sezioni/cronaca/ atei-autobus/obiezione-autisti/obiezione-autisti.html. Alfonso, D. 2009d. “‘L’ ateo-bus? Una ferita alla sensibilità religiosa,” Repubblica. Retrie­ ved from http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubblica/archivio/repubblica/2009/01/18/ ateo-bus-una-ferita-alla-sensibilita-religiosa.html. Alfonso, D. 2009e. “Bus-atei: la Vincenzi risponde a Gasparri.” Primocanale.it. Retrie­ ved from http://www.primocanale.it/notizie/bus-atei-la-vincenzi-risponde-a-gas parri-41971.html. Anonymous 2009b. “Bus atei, votano 2.300 lettori la spuntano di misura (52%) i ‘sì’.” Il Secolo XIX. Anonymous 2009c. “‘Dio non esiste’, dopo i bus di Genova arrivano i manifesti a Pescara.” Quotidiano.net. Retrieved from http://qn.quotidiano.net/2009/02/26/154181 -esiste_dopo_genova.shtml. Anonymous 2009d. “Stop ai manifesti anti-cattolici già prima che possano arrivare.” Il Centro Pescara. Retrieved from http://ricerca.gelocal.it/ilcentro/archivio/ilcentro/ 2009/02/28/CHXPO_CV105.html. 62

As illustrated above, this centripetal effect of belief is limited to worldviews admitting a hierarchical, if not unique, structure of theological sources.

214

GASBARRI

Anonymous 2009e. “Pubblicità atea a Cernusco È polemica.” Repubblica.it. retrieved from http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubblica/archivio/repubblica/2009/04/04/pub blicita-atea-cernusco-polemica.html. Bullivant, S. 2008. “Research Note: Sociology and the Study of Atheism.” Journal of Contemporary Religion, 23.3. Carcano, R. 2009, January 26. “Ateobus, il diritto di dire che Dio non c’è.” Micromega. Retrieved from http://temi.repubblica.it/micromega-online/ateobus-il-diritto-di-dire -che-dio-non-ce/. Celi, R. 2009, January 12. “Spot sull’ateismo, anche a Genova i bus che promuovono l’inesistenza di dio.” Repubblica Genova. Retrieved from http://www.repubblica .it/2009/01/sezioni/cronaca/atei-autobus/atei-autobus/atei-autobus.html. Cotter, C.R. 2011. “Toward a typology of ‘nonreligion’: A qualitative analysis of everyday narratives of Scottish university students.” Unpublished MSc by Research Dissertation, Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. Elkin, A.P. 1974. “Reviewed Work: Belief, Language, and Experience by Rodney Needham.” Oceania. Vol. 45.1. Fieske, S.T. 2009. “Social Beings: A Core Motives Approach to Social Psychology.” John Wiley & Sons. Gallo, A.; Senesi, V. 2014. “Sopra ogni cosa.” Ed. Piemme, Segrate, Italy. Garelli, F. 2007. “Research Note between Religion and Spirituality: New Perspectives in the Italian Religious Landscape.” Review of Religious Research, vol. 48.3. Gasbarri, V. 2011. Powerful Equality. MSc dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University College of London, London. Hendelmann, D. 2008. “Afterword: Returning to Cosmology – Thoughts on the Positioning of Belief.” Social Analysis, Vol.52.1. Huizinga, J. 1949. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. The Beacon Press, Boston. Iadicicco, R. 2009. “Libertà religiosa: Gasparri, sconcerta pubblicità atea su bus.” AGI. Retrieved from http://www.trasporti-oggi.it/archives/00025375.html. Lautsi and others v. Italy. 2011. ECHR. No. 30814/06 Lee, L. 2012. “Talking about a revolution: terminology for the new field of non-religion studies.” Journal of Contemporary Religion. Vol. 27.1. Lewis, J. 1992. “If only we ate fruit: conceptions of the spirit-world in some egalitarian societies.” Essay submitted for the Emrys Peters essay prize, Dept. of Social Anthropology, University of Manchester. Lukes, S. 2004. Power: A Radical View. Palgrave Macmillan. Lussana, M. 2009, January 13. “I bus contro Dio arrivano sotto casa di Bagnasco.” Il Giornale. Retrieved from http://www.ilgiornale.it/news/i-bus-contro-dio-arrivano -sotto-casa-bagnasco.html.

ITALY: THE REGIMENTATION OF IDENTITY AND BELIEF

215

Palmer, R. 2009, March 4. “Who Rules Italy?” The Trumpet.com. Retrieved from http:// www.thetrumpet.com/article/6003.4365.0.0/world/united-nations/who-rules-Italy. Serra, M. 2009, January 14. “L’amaca.” Repubblica.it. Retrieved from http://ricerca .repubblica.it/repubblica/archivio/repubblica/2009/01/14/amaca.html. Sosis, R. 2003. “Why aren’t we all Hutterites: Costly Signaling Theory and Religious Behavior.” Human Nature, Vol. 14(2). Sperber, D. 1997. “Intuitive and Reflective Beliefs.” Mind and Language 12 (1). Stoczkowski, W. 2002. Explaining Human Origins: Myth, Imagination and Conjecture. Cambridge University Press. Valli, W. 2009, January 13. “Ajmar: ‘Giusto ascoltare anche chi non è credente’.” Repubblica Genova. Retrieved from http://genova.repubblica.it/dettaglio/ajmar:-giusto -ascoltare-anche-chi-non-e-credente/1574123. Woodburn, J. 2012. “Immediate-return societies.” Public Lecture at the Dept. of Archaeology, January 9–16, University College of London. Zinola, M. 2009a. “Frenata sulla pubblicità ‘atea’ «Prima vediamo i bozzetti».” Il Secolo XIX. Retrieved from: http://www.ilsecoloxix.it/p/genova/2009/01/13/AMgGyJMC -bozzetti_vediamo_pubblicita.shtml. Zinola, M. 2009b. “Bus ‘atei’, 2000 votanti il 52% era favorevole.” Il Secolo XIX. Retrie­ ved from: http://www.ilsecoloxix.it/p/genova/2009/01/17/AMpMvpMC-favorevole _atei_votanti.shtml.

chapter 10

The Netherlands: Shifting Secularities? Hanna Lehtinen The Dutch variation of the atheist bus campaign took place in March 2009. In the Netherlands, the advertisements with atheist slogans were not displayed on buses. Instead, the slogan “Er is waarschijnlijk geen god. Durf zelf te denken en geniet van het leven!”1 was displayed for two weeks on an outdoor commercial billboard, located by the busy A4 highway next to Schiphol international airport in Amsterdam. The initiative for an atheist campaign in the Netherlands came from Dr. Floris van den Berg, an atheist and environmental activist, who at the time was the director of the Dutch humanist thinktank Centre for Inquiry Low Countries (cfi). The campaign was organized by a team of four people and it was supported by three secular Humanist and freethinker organizations, namely the Centre for Inquiry Low Countries, Humanistisch Verbond, and the freethinkers’ association De Vrije Gedachte. The spirit and motives behind the campaign were faithful to the original atheist bus campaign organized in the United Kingdom. However, the Dutch slogan came with a slightly different emphasis. Instead of “stop worrying,” the text on the billboard encouraged people to dare to think for themselves. This formulation refers to the Latin proverb sapere aude and to the philosophy of the Enlightenment.2 The goals of the Dutch atheist billboard campaign were, according to Van den Berg, to normalize atheism, to promote reason, and to offer a positive counter-message to religious organizations that often promote their cause in public spaces, including bus stops and train stations. The campaign was also meant to bring the privileges of religious institutions under critical scrutiny and public debate. The atheist ad campaign certainly was something new with its strong visual message displayed out in the open, and it did provoke some debate on the right and limits of promoting religion and nonreligion in the public sphere.

1 “There probably is no god. Dare to think for yourself and enjoy life!” Translated by author. 2 Floris Van den Berg, interview 2014. Van den Berg refers to Immanuel Kant and his way of using the proverb, which is usually translated “dare to know” or “dare to be wise.” Kant saw Enlightenment as a sort of self-liberation through reason.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004328532_011

THE NETHERLANDS: ATHEIST BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN

217

The campaign also fed into and blended with other ongoing discussions about the role and proper place of religion(s) and nonreligion in the Dutch society. This chapter maps the atheist bus campaign in the Netherlands from the perspective of multiple secularities. I make use of the analytical model developed and applied to the Dutch context by Cora Schuh, Marian Burchardt and Monika Wohlrab-Sahr. They suggest that a shift in the cultural content and understanding of secularity is occurring in the Netherlands,3 and my aim here is to show how the Dutch atheist ad campaign and the ensuing discussion can be seen as manifestations of this development. First, I will give a short introduction to religion and secularity in the Netherlands as the context in which the atheist ad campaign was organized. Second, I will outline the campaign and the subsequent events. Finally, I will turn to examining both legal and social responses provoked by the campaign. Legal responses include a parliamentary question, the bus company refusals to display the advertisement, and a complaint filed to the Advertising Code Committee. In examining the social response I focus on the discussion in Dutch press media. In addition, I have included news articles from online news services and broadcasting companies such as Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (a Dutch public-service broadcaster) as well as my own short interview with Dr. Floris van den Berg. Because the campaign was not conducted as a bus campaign in the Netherlands, I will be referring to the Dutch campaign simply as the ‘atheist ad campaign’. 10.1

Religion and Secularity in the Netherlands

The Netherlands has long been a predominantly Christian country, with both Roman Catholic and Protestant communities. The Netherlands’ policy of religious tolerance dates back to the Dutch Republic of the United Provinces (1568–1795). Even though Calvinism was granted a privileged position, a freedom of conscience was also established. Consequently, the Dutch Republic attracted a multitude of religious minorities and dissenters. French Huguenots, Jews, Mennonites and other Protestant groups that were persecuted in their respective lands of origin, migrated to the country and laid the groundwork for the Netherlands to become a multi-religious society in the 19th century.4 3 Schuh, Cora, Burchard, Maria and Wohlrab-Sahr, Monika. “Contested Secularities: Religious Minorities and Secular Progressivism in the Netherlands.” Journal of Religion in Europe vol. 5, Issue no. 3 (2012) 349–383. 4 Knippenberg, 2005, 88–89, 91; Van der Veer, 2006, 533.

218

LEHTINEN

During the 19th century, Dutch society was organized mainly along confessional and political lines. This process of ‘pillarization’ meant that different groups – Catholic, Protestant, Socialist and Liberal – were considerably autonomous societies within the larger framework of the state.5 According to Hans Knippenberg, the pillarization meant that a Catholic, for example, […M]arried a Catholic boy or girl, sent his/her children to a Catholic school, listened to the programs of a Catholic broadcasting corporation, read a Catholic newspaper, rented a house from a Catholic housing association, was a member of the Catholic trade union, received Catholic healthcare, voted for a Catholic political party and was eventually buried in a Catholic cemetery by a Catholic undertaker.6 This lengthy quote illustrates the lived reality of the pillarization, which reached its peak during the first half of the 20th century.7 An important element in the process of pillarization was the Dutch education system, which first granted religious communities the right to establish their own schools, which were initially privately funded, and later became supported financially by the state.8 The process of so-called de-pillarization, the crumbling of the separation between confessional groups, started after the Second World War, and it turned especially rapid since the cultural revolution of the 1960s.9 This change was accompanied and facilitated by the growth of the Dutch welfare state that led to diminishing social dependence of the religious institutions. Increasing levels of education, a wider range of opportunities, and the improved availability of contraceptives have also been pointed out as facilitating the liberalization of values. According to Hans Knippenberg, this de-pillarization is clearly observable in the increasing number of cross-confessional marriages and the radical decline in the electoral support to the confessional political parties.10 Today, the Netherlands can well be perceived as a highly secularized country. The state apparatus has been ‘secular’ since the constitution of 1848.11 The separation of the state and churches is expressed in the constitution in the 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Knippenberg, 2005, 89. Ibid. 90. Ibid. 90–91. Ibid. 89. Ibid. 90; Van der Veer, 2006, 533–534. Knippenberg ,2005, 90–91. Ibid. 89; Schuh et al. 2012, 360–361.

THE NETHERLANDS: ATHEIST BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN

219

principle of state neutrality and the ban on discrimination on, for example, religious grounds.12 According to the Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (Statistics Netherlands, cbs) the largest religious denomination in 2009 was the Roman Catholic Church, with 27 percent of the population being a member. 18 percent of the population belonged to a Protestant church (Protestante Kerk in Nederland, Nederlands Hervormd and Gereformeerd.) and 10 percent identified with other religious communities. In other social surveys, these numbers have been reported as even lower.13 The most common non-Christian religious affiliation is Islam, with 5.1 percent of the population being Muslims, while 44 percent of the population were not religiously affiliated. The attendance at religious activities is quite low, and in 2009 73 percent of the population reported that they took part in the activities of religious denominations “seldom or never.”14 Looking at another classical (and much debated) indicator of religiosity, the faith aspect, things do not seem quite as drastic. According to the 2005 Eurobarometer, 34 percent of the Dutch respondents agreed with the statement “I believe there is a God.” 37 percent of the respondents chose the statement “I believe in some sort of a spirit or life force” as being closest to their own views. The percentage of people who did not believe in any god, spirit or other life force was 27 percent.15 It is by no means clear what is meant by secularity when it comes to people’s attitudes and values. Egbert Ribberink and Dick Houtman from Erasmus U ­ niversity Rotterdam have in their work on “deprivatization of disbelief” delved into atheism and nonreligiosity.16 In their article on the situation of non-­believing in the Netherlands they note that while the census in the ­Netherlands may call as much as 14 percent of the population ‘atheists’ simply because they have said they do not believe in a god or a higher power, it makes sense to ask whether these people really are atheists in the sense of being anti-religious or outspoken about it, or indeed interested in questions of religion or nonreligion in general. The title of their other article, “Te ongelovig om atheïst te zijn” (“Too [much of a] non-believer to be an atheist”) illustrates well the situation. According to the authors, a certain assertive type of atheism 12 13 14 15 16

Schuh et al. 2012, 375. gin; Knippenberg, 2005, 92. cbs Statline. Eurobarometer, 2005. See Ribberink, Achterberg and Houtman, 2013, “Deprivatization of Disbelief?: Non­ Religiosity and Anti-Religiosity in 14Western European Countries,” Politics and Religion, Volume 6 / Issue 01 / March 2013, pp. 101–120.

220

LEHTINEN

or nonreligiosity has risen to the fore. The authors cite author Kluun who has called this group “missionary atheists.”17 It is important to note that not everyone who defines themselves as nonreligious or atheist share the same views. As an indicator of the heterogeneity of the nonreligious people Ribberink and Houtman cite a 1998 study which shows that people who state that they do not believe in God are actually divided when asked to agree or disagree with the statement “It would be good for the Netherlands, if religion had less influence.” This, according to Ribberink and Houtman, may shed some light on the fact that in reality people who do not believe in a god or a higher power may have very different stances when it comes to religion in general. By contrast, the principle of keeping religion and politics separate seems a sacred one: of those who stated they do not believe in a god or a higher power, 96 percent agreed with the statement “Religion and politics should be kept separate.”18 It would seem that one of the groups that have emerged as more and more visible in the public domain are the proponents of progressive secularism, or “atheists on a mission.” In their article “Te ongelovig om atheist te zijn” Egbert Ribberink and Dick Houtman highlight the distinction between indifferent nonreligious people and those who vouch for more assertive, outspoken atheism or even anti-religiosity. Ribberink and Houtman point out that in the Netherlands, sociologists of religion have not studied further the differences within the category of unbelievers. Regarding the atheist ad campaign they note that the negative responses to both the campaign and ‘missionary atheism’ in general often came from unbelievers.19 Schuh et al. also note that there is “an enormous middle ground of people who neither actively reject religion per se, but seem to agree to privatization of religion.”20 Multiple Secularities and the Cultural Content of Secularity in the Netherlands One way of examining the complexity of what secularity might mean in this specific cultural context is the viewpoint of multiple secularities. Cora Schuch, Marian Burchardt and Monika Wohlrab-Sahr point at the difficulties associated with trying to operate with a single understanding of secularity. They 10.1.1

17 Kluun, God is gek. De diktatuur van het athëisme, 2010, Amsterdam: Podium. Cited in Ribberink and Houtman, 2010, 210. 18 Ribberink and Houtman, 2010, 212. 19 Ribberink and Houtman, 2010, 217. 20 Schuh et al. 2012, 365.

THE NETHERLANDS: ATHEIST BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN

221

a­ rgue that by dividing secularity into multiple secularities and examining the secularist ethos in each historical case we can more fruitfully say something specific about how secularity or secularism has found its expressions in each cultural context. The authors then apply this viewpoint to the Dutch case, and suggest an analytical framework for understanding the Dutch situation from this point of view. In the Netherlands, traditionally, the need for the separation of state and church had been a necessary policy for the governing apparatus to function in a multi-religious society strongly organized in different camps. In order to maintain peace and allow for cooperation, the state had to be seen as a neutral arena, or an arbiter facilitating reconciliation in the event of disagreement between the different religious factions. It was due to these practical matters that the secular state and assigning religion increasingly to the private sphere happened.21 This background has given rise to cultural underpinnings of secularity that Schuh et al. label “secularity for the sake of religious tolerance.” The state and certain public arenas must remain neutral in order to allow for religious groups to live alongside one another and practise their respective faiths in peace. However, this is not the only ethos of secularity the authors see present in the Dutch society today. Other understandings of secularity rose to the fore in conjunction with developments such as liberalization of values, decline in religious affiliation and attendance, and increasing prosperity. The authors name these somewhat competing understandings of secularity as “Secularity for the sake of individual liberties” and “Secularity for the sake of national integrity and progress.” “Secularity for the sake of individual liberties” emphasizes the necessity to defend the rights and liberties of individuals from social groups such as religion. The authors note that this understanding of secularity has coexisted and stood in “mutual tension” with the idea of “secularity for the sake of religious tolerance” from the very beginning. The latter type refers to an idea of secularity as the goal and means for human development. Often, this type of understanding of secularity operates with a story of progress, where religions are seen as vestiges of the old, murkier times, and secularization along with scientific inquiry is seen as enlightenment and betterment of humanity. The writers name this latter type of secularity “secular progressivism.” This type of secularity could be seen as including or overlapping with the ‘atheists on a mission’ mentioned by Ribberink and Houtman. 21

Schuh et al. 2012, 360–362.

222

LEHTINEN

Schuh et al. conclude that a shift from a more traditional “secularity for the sake of religious tolerance” toward more liberal and progressivist underpinnings is occurring in Dutch society. They do emphasize, however, that these different models of secularities are ideal types in the Weberian sense, and most likely to be found parallel to and combined with one another.22 Based on my own analysis on the atheist ad campaign in the Netherlands, I would argue that the campaign can be seen as part of the shift in the cultural content of secularity in the Netherlands. The campaign itself can be seen as a sign of increasing visibility of assertive secularity, or secular progressivism, although the rhetorics of the campaigners also emphasize safeguarding individual liberties. Traces of the different ways of understanding Dutch secularity and the principles of tolerance on one hand and freedom of expression on the other can be seen in the public debate that ensued. The atheist ad campaign was to an extent new in its visibility in the Dutch public sphere, and it created some discussion on whether this type of display of nonreligiosity is constructive or acceptable or not. Although the campaign fed into this discussion to an extent, it certainly was not the starting point. The societal context in which the atheist ad campaign took place is already riddled with debate. Discussion on the role of religion in Dutch society and debates on the balance between religious tolerance and freedom of expression have been on the agenda for at least two decades. This discussion started with the growing number of Muslim immigrants in the Netherlands. Much of the debate over religion revolves around Islam and its compatibility with Dutch culture and values, especially after the murders of the politician Pim Fortuyn in 2002 and the artist Theo van Gogh in 2004. Both Fortuyn and van Gogh were outspoken critics of Islam.23 Apart from debates surrounding Islam, conversation on the position of the more established religious institutions has also gained strength. A case in point is the controversy around the Reformed Political Party (Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij sgp), which practised a policy of banning female candidates.24 Another discussion which is in the centre of (re)defining the place of religions in Dutch society is the debate on the so-called blasphemy law and scrapping it from the constitution. The proponents of the change often argued that there 22 23

24

Ibid. 349, 360. Pim Fortuyn’s murder was not committed by an adherent to Islam but by an environmental activist. However, his anti-Islamic stances and the relief expressed by the Islamic community upon hearing that the murderer was not a Muslim, highlight the entanglement with the visibility and debate on Islam. Schuh et al. 2012, 350. Schuh et al. 2012, 375.

THE NETHERLANDS: ATHEIST BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN

223

is enough protection in the general protection against hate speech, and that religions should not be given a special status. This debate was discussed during the atheist ad campaign in 2009. Floris van den Berg wrote a rather provocative essay to Trouw defending the idea of scrapping the freedom of religion right from the Dutch constitution altogether. His argument was that religion already enjoys the same protections as other social groups and “hobby clubs” and should not be given any special status. In his essay he even suggests that the state should take measures to diminish the influence religions have in the society.25 10.2

The Atheist Ad Campaign in the Netherlands

News of the atheist bus campaign in the United Kingdom (uk) arrived to the Netherlands as soon as the plans for it were made public. Stories of similar campaigns organized in Spain and Italy were also published in Dutch media. Dr. Floris van den Berg, the initiator and the most active spokesperson for the Dutch atheist ad campaign, says he decided to start organizing a similar campaign while he was commenting on the atheist bus campaign in the uk on a radio program. The interviewer asked Van den Berg whether a similar campaign would be organized in the Netherlands. He made an ad hoc decision and responded in the affirmative. Planning of the campaign started soon after. The team organizing the campaign consisted of four people, and it was supported by the secular humanist Humanistisch Verbond, the freethinkers’ association De Vrije Gedachte and the secular humanist thinktank cfi Low Countries. A campaign website26 was created and the collection of donations started. The campaign was funded with financial support from the three associations as well as private donations. According to Van den Berg, the approximate budget of the campaign was €20,000. The idea of promoting atheism in the media was not exactly new to the Dutch humanist organizations. For example, in 2007 the Humanistisch Verbond had organized a radio advertisement that invited people to support the humanist cause. “The voice of religions can be heard louder and more often. Humanists believe in the power of human beings... Without your support,

25 26

Floris van den Berg, “Schrap vrijheid van godsdienst uit Grondwet,” Trouw, March 14, 2009. www.atheismecampagne.nl. The campaign website has since been taken down, and unfortunately could not be used as material in this research.

224

LEHTINEN

­ umanism will be delivered onto the gods,”27 the radio ad proclaimed.28 So h the atheist ad campaign dovetailed nicely with former campaigning. The novelty of the campaign lay in the specific format of visual advertising in public space. It probably also gained additional momentum from the media attention drawn to other campaigns arranged abroad. The news coverage and public comments on the campaign-to-be started early on. The information circulating in the media was updated as the plans made by organizers of the campaign became clearer. The initial plan featuring bus ads similar to those in the uk and Spain had to be scrapped as the campaign ads were not allowed on public transport. According to various media reports on the matter, bus companies such as Veolia and Arriva refused to display atheist advertisement on their buses, basing their decision on their general code of conduct prohibiting religiously or politically ideological advertisement.29 The plan was updated accordingly, and the next idea was to place atheist advertisement on bus stops and train platforms instead of buses. Advertising on train station ad boards would probably have reflected the activities of some Christian organizations, such as the Bond tegen vloeken and the evangelizing organization Stevan, which is specialized in missionary work in public spaces and has run several poster campaigns at the train stations.30 However, the plan to place atheist advertisements at bus stops and train stations also faced refusal. According to Van den Berg, a similar general rule against promotion of religion, and by extension, nonreligion was employed in these refusals. After these refusals it was agreed that the slogan would be placed on an advertising billboard on the A4 highway next to Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam. 27

28

29

30

The original Dutch slogan of the campaign “zonder uw steun is het humanisme aan de goden overgeleverd” includes a reference to the Bible, more specifically Luke 18:32: “For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on.” The message then was that humanism would be completely left at the mercy of religions. This campaign also raised some controversy and provoked a complaint filed to the Advertisement Code Committee. This complaint was turned down by the Committee. http://www.humanistischverbond.nl/nieuws/ reclamespot-humanistisch-verbond-niet-kwetsend. The radio campaign was discussed in several reader letters, such as: “Reclame op de bus” Reformatorisch Dagblad, January 29, 2009; Ger Groot: “Reclamecampagne is ware athëist onwaardig,” nrc Handelsblad, February 9, 2009. “Omstreden tekst niet op Brabantse bussen,” Omroep Brabant, 11.03.2009, Link: http:// www.omroepbrabant.nl/?news/1148671193/Omstreden+tekst+niet+op+Brabantse+buss en.aspx. Stevan website: http://www.stevan.nl/over-stevan.html, Bond tegen vloeken website: http://www.bondtegenvloeken.nl/over-bond-tegen-vloeken/visie-missie/.

THE NETHERLANDS: ATHEIST BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN

225

The billboard poster was put up on March 10, 2009, and up it stayed for nearly two weeks, until March 23, 2009. The campaigners also distributed some smaller posters to several Dutch cities, but according to Van den Berg, they received hardly any attention. In addition, bumper stickers of the same theme were produced. Two months after the billboard campaign, the first Dutch Atheism Day was organized in Utrecht. 10.3

Legal Responses

The discussion and debate around the campaign started as soon as the news about a possible campaign in the Netherlands got out, and the three organizations had started planning the campaign. Bus companies as well as the Dutch Railways (ns) refused to display the advertisement, deploying arguments regarding legal restrictions or general code of conduct. In addition, some protested the idea of atheist ads by taking the legal route. On January 23, 2009, when the planning of the campaign was underway, Kees van der Staaij, a parliamentary member of the Christian sgp sent a written parliamentary question regarding the campaign to the minister of transportation. Van der Staaij voiced his concern that this type of advertisement might be offensive towards the religious population, and that such a slogan might not be in line with the societal role of public transport. After the billboard campaign was over, a complaint was filed to the Dutch Advertising Code Committee. 10.3.1 Parliamentary Question In a parliamentary question addressed to Tineke Huizinga-Heringa, the minister of transport, Kees Van der Staaij, enquired what the minister thought of the prospect of “advertisement against God, Allah and Jahwe”31 being placed on the buses. Van der Staaij asked whether the minister thought such a potentially offensive advertisement was compatible with the public nature of bus services and whether the companies could refuse such advertisement on their buses. He also asked if there were some guidelines for what kind of advertisement could be allowed on public transport, for example, in the concession contracts they have signed with the respective municipalities. In case such guidelines 31

Beantwoording Kamervragen lid Van der Staaij over een athëistische reclamecampagne op de bussen, March 4, 2009. Link: http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/bestanden/documenten -en-publicaties/kamerstukken/2009/03/04/20091312-beantwoording-kamervragen -lid-van-der-staaij-over-een-atheistische-reclamecampagne-op-bussen/20091312.pdf (accessed on August 12, 2015).

226

LEHTINEN

did not exist, he asked, should this then be desirable? Van der Staaij also asked about the right of the bus drivers who saw the slogans as insulting to refuse to drive vehicles that carried the advertisement. He concluded by asking if the minister would be ready to ensure that the atheist slogans would not be permitted on public transport. In her response to Van der Staaij’s questions, Tineke Huizinga-Heringa wrote that she had no direct authority over the matter. She made it very clear that the companies themselves are the first and foremost decision-makers assessing any offered advertisement. The decision would be based on the exact content and formulation of the advertisement in question. Huizinga-Heringa wrote that she is confident that these companies do take into account their public role when making these assessments, and that no offensive material should pass their examination. According to Huizinga-Heringa, different transport companies have different guidelines for advertisement on their buses. Some refuse advertisements altogether. Some consider advertisements case-specifically and base their decisions on the Dutch Advertisement Code,32 possibly in consultations with their client. In some cases specific guidelines have been agreed on by the bus companies and the advertising operators. In addition, there are some limitations in the concession agreements. Adding specific guidelines regarding advertisement to the concession contracts is the responsibility of the provincial and municipal authorities. In roughly half of the cases some kind of guidelines or restrictions have been added to the concession agreement. There may be specific rules such as no offensive advertisement or advertisement that is against the generally accepted social norms. Huizinga-Heringa further explained that the question regarding the rights of the employee is a matter to be solved between the employee and employer. As the companies do take their public role into account, this surely extends to their own employees. In case someone finds any advertisement displayed to be discriminatory or otherwise unacceptable, complaints should be addressed to the Dutch Advertisement Code Committee. Finally Huizinga-Heringa stated that her role as a minister does not give her the power to affect the decisions made by the different bus companies and possibly the local authorities in terms of allowing or refusing advertisements.

32

The Dutch Advertisement Code (Sichting Reclame Code) contains general rules of conduct to advertisement. The Advertisement Code Committee is the independent body dealing with complaints regarding advertisements that do not comply with the Code. https://www.reclamecode.nl/bijlagen/dutch_advertising_code.pdf.

THE NETHERLANDS: ATHEIST BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN

227

10.3.2 Public Debate between Kees van der Staaij and Floris van den Berg On the following day, January 28, 2009, Floris van den Berg and Kees van der Staaij participated a short debate on a television program Nova.33 The debate was very short and to the point, and it mainly focused on both sides stating their views. Van der Staaij claimed that “the Humanist and the Calvinist must both be able to ride the same bus without being confronted with such advertisement.” He also said that he would object to a religious advertisement occupying a similar space. His underlying argument was that the public space, of which the public transport system is a part, should be neutral for everyone regardless of their personal beliefs. Van den Berg pointed out that religions already promote themselves in the public space, and that the atheist ad campaign is only an attempt to bring the voice of the atheist to the discussion as well. In his view, the situation is imbalanced; religions have a special standing in society, and they have the right to promote their views on various public forums. The same right should be granted to all similar groups, atheists included. Van der Staaij’s argument seems to fall nicely into the category of “Secularity for the sake of religious tolerance.” Floris van den Berg counters this claim by saying that neutrality is not the current state of affairs. Instead of demanding this, though, he argues that other views should have equal right to promote themselves in the public. His argument focuses on freedom of expression and a right to equal visibility and could be connected with secularity for the sake of individual liberties. 10.3.3 Complaint to the Dutch Advertisement Code Committee After the two-week billboard campaign was over, a school class from Van Lodenstein College, Amersfoort, filed a complaint about the slogan to the Dutch Advertising Code Committee together with their teacher. The complainants claimed that the slogan was unduly offensive to religious people and attacked their religious values. They further argued that the statement on the billboard could not be proved true and that it sows unnecessary divisions and disquiet. Finally they concluded that the advertisement discriminated and is not fair.34 In a hearing, the complainants declared that the initiative for the complaint had come from a group of students who were at the time taking a

33 34

Nova, Broadcast on January 28, 2009. Stichting Reclame Code, Afwijzing, April 27, 2009. https://www.reclamecode.nl/webuits praak.asp?ID=11259&acCode.

228

LEHTINEN

course on advertising. According to the complainants, a believer is offended when the existence of God is denied. In an open coexistence everyone can have their own opinion. However, this does not extend to the right to needlessly offend religious feelings. Opinions based on religion can be criticized, but not the religious person. In their defence the campaigners pointed out that the campaign slogan had been cited incorrectly in the media, and the complaint was based on this incorrect version. Thus, it seemed apparent that the complainants had not seen the actual billboard themselves. According to the campaigners not many religious people felt insulted by the campaign. Furthermore, the intent of the campaign had not been to insult anyone: it was meant to encourage people to think for themselves about whether there really is a god or not, and whether religions should have a privileged position in society. The campaigners placed the burden of proof on the shoulders of believers and said that it is not the job of the advertiser to prove that there is no God. They also pointed out that religious proclamations also sow unrest and division. They argued that the campaign was not discriminatory, as believers could also put up billboards and the core of freedom of expression is that everyone can state their opinion. Finally, the defence states that the complaint ‘smells of censorship’. After hearing both parties on the matter, the Advertising Code Committee dismissed the complaint on April 27, 2009.35 The committee stated that even though it was understandable that the slogan may not have been appreciated by some people as it dealt with the fundamentals of their faith, this did not mean that the campaign was unduly offensive or discriminatory. The principle is that in the Netherlands, everyone has, within the limits of law, the right to express their ideas in public. This applies to the campaign slogan, which proclaims a specific, personal opinion. The fact that this opinion insulted the complainant and his students’ personal views does not mean that the slogan was unduly offensive. The advertisers were allowed to express their views on a billboard, and they did so in a general sense, not pointing at any specific faith or group of believers. The fact that the complainant and his students saw the slogan as flawed did not change the decision. The committee found that the slogan dealt with a personal view about questions of faith, which cannot be judged by rational proof. The committee also took the view that the slogan was not discriminatory, in that it did not call for treating believers in an unfavourable manner.

35

Reclame Code Commissie, afwijzing, 2009/00254.

THE NETHERLANDS: ATHEIST BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN

229

Floris van den Berg reacted to the complaint by writing an open letter addressed to the class.36 In the letter he wrote that in an open coexistence everyone takes the risk of running into advertisements that they find offensive. He compared the offended feelings of a particular group of Christians to his own feelings of being offended when, as a vegan, he runs into commercial billboards advertising meat or fish. He further argues that not everyone has to agree with what is being said, and that they may protest by reacting to the advertisement, but censorship is nevertheless “not a good road.”37 Van den Berg stated that in an open society freedom of expression is the most important and fundamental value, everyone must have the right to criticize other’s opinions, and as religion has much more power than, say, a music association, it needs to be criticized. He claimed that the slogan used in the campaign was not discriminatory, because discrimination means judging people based on “redundant” features. He pointed out that it was entirely possible for people with different faiths to put up similar billboards as long as those boards are legal. Here he may be referring to an illegally placed billboard in Staphorst, which was taken down by the order of the municipal authorities.38 The idea that the campaign sows unrest and division was countered in Van den Berg’s letter by saying that religious denominations and worldviews sow unrest and divisions between different religious worldviews by campaigning against abortion, homosexuality and the theory of evolution. Van den Berg also commented on questions about the word “probably” in the campaign slogan. On one hand, everyone has the right to think for themselves, he explained, and the purpose of the board was to make people think for themselves instead of accepting given truths at face value. But, on the other hand, Van den Berg concluded that “God does not exist, just like leprechauns do not exist.” He also writes that “Whoever thinks for themselves will come to the conclusion that god [sic] does not exist.”39 This bit is interesting in the sense that the two styles of secularity – secularity for the sake of individual liberties and secular progressivism – seem to be competing with one another. On one hand, Van den Berg brings up individual liberties, such as the right to choose and to think for oneself. On the other hand, he makes clear what is, in his view, 36

Floris van den Berg, “An Open Letter the the Lodenstein class.” April 2, 2009. Published on the website of Nederlands Dagblad. Link: http://www.nd.nl/images/library/PDF/briefk laslodenstein.pdf 37 Ibid. 38 http://www.rtvoost.nl/nieuws/?nid=94678; http://www.rtvoost.nl/archief/default.aspx? cat=61&nid=94728. 39 van den Berg, 2009.

230

LEHTINEN

the right way of reasoning the question, following a very progressivist note. He also explained that he perceives religion as being detrimental to the well-being of the people, and especially groups such as women and homosexuals. 10.4

Social Responses

According to Floris van der Berg, the Atheist ad campaign received some attention in the form of radio programs, television interviews, and newspaper articles. When asked about the tone of the feedback, he concluded that the feedback for the campaign was mostly positive, and that negative responses were “fewer than expected.”40 One protest worth mentioning is a counter-campaign billboard that was put up when the atheist ad campaign was underway. A billboard appeared next to the highway A28, near the village of Staphorst. The board’s visual style was similar to the atheist billboard, and the text was formulated as a direct reference to the campaign slogan, proclaiming: “Er is waarlijk één god, durf te geloven en geniet ook het leven na dit leven!” (“There truly is a god, dare to believe and enjoy also the life after this one!”) According to regional public broadcaster rtv Oost, the board was the idea of the pastor of the Reformed Church41 in Staphorst and Roveen.42 This billboard was ordered to be taken down by the municipality after the owner of the land had asked for the board to be removed.43 10.4.1 Visibility and Discussion in the Dutch Press Media My inventory of the Dutch press media indicates that the discussion was not tremendous in volume, but the campaign was definitely noticed and linked to other discussions related to atheism in general and the visibility of both religion and atheism. Obviously, the visibility of the topic in the press media is only one aspect of the whole conversation, and my search has not even touched on the discussion and debate on the Internet. It should also be noted that as a non-native Dutch speaker I may not have spotted all cultural intricacies and references, so plenty remains to be studied. Nevertheless, I believe

40 41 42 43

van den Berg, 2014. Gereformeerde kerk, nowadays part of the pkn. “Bord bij Staphorst tegen goddeloze borden,” rtv Oost, 16.03.2009. Link: http://www .rtvoost.nl/nieuws/?nid=94678. “Bord A28 Staphorst moeten weg,” rtv Oost, 17.03.2009, Link: http://www.rtvoost.nl/ archief/default.aspx?nid=94688.

THE NETHERLANDS: ATHEIST BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN

231

that my small-scale analysis can reveal some features of the different reactions to the campaign. First I searched through 44 Dutch newspapers, both nationwide and regional. The most active period of media interest lasted from January to the end of March, when the campaign billboard was taken down. The campaign was reported on throughout the planning process and during the campaign. Afterwards the complaint filed at the Dutch Advertisement Code Committee received some media attention. It was still occasionally mentioned in articles dealing with atheism and religious questions in general later in the same year. Most papers I examined reported on the campaign at least once or twice; but more in-depth reporting and discussion seem to have been concentrated in four papers. These are Nederlands Dagblad, rc Handelsblad and nrc.next, Reformatorisch Dagblad, and Trouw. Apart from simply reporting the proceedings of the atheist bus campaign, these papers also published some opinions and lengthier articles on themes related to the campaign, as well as some comments and reader letters. I have examined the articles and reader letters and mapped both the different views taken on the campaign as well as other discussions that this campaign was connected to. 10.4.2 Offensive and Intolerant The political protests accounted for earlier came mainly from the Orthodox Protestant population. The same protest atmosphere can be seen in the newspapers. While many papers reported on the campaign and the ensuing legal debate, the religiously inclined, Orthodox Protestant papers Reformatorisch Dagblad and Nederlands Dagblad were most vocal in discussing the campaign. Reformatorisch Dagblad in particular reported on the campaign both in the Netherlands and abroad. From January to August 2009 my search uncovered eleven articles and reader letters. Generally, the views expressed in the articles and reader letters were critical toward the campaign. Writers often found the campaign offensive and it was also argued that it seemed to be directed against Christians in particular. In an article “Atheïstische reclame,” published on January 24, 2009, it was stated that pvv leader Geert Wilders was prosecuted for his scorn for Islam, “but the same rules regarding blasphemy do not seem to apply for everyone.”44 In an opinion piece “Reclame op de bus” it was claimed that the campaigners were afraid of the Muslim reaction. According to the writer, this showed that the campaign was directed mostly against Christians: “They [New Atheists] 44

“Atheïstische reclame” Reformatorisch Dagblad, January 24, 2009.

232

LEHTINEN

want to see all expressions of it [faith] pushed away from the public space.” In the same article, Atheism was described as “onverdraagzam,” intolerant.45 The use of the public space for the campaign was also questioned: “Shouldn’t the government precisely keep the street, the public space, free from anti-­ religious propaganda? But one cannot expect much else from a cabinet that wishes to curb the ban on blasphemy.”46 Here the bus campaign was connected to a legal debate that had started earlier. The idea that the government should keep the street free from anti-religious propaganda seemed very pointedly to fall under the category of “secularity for the sake of religious tolerance,” and especially tolerance for religions. Some of the articles also discussed or outright demanded protests against the atheist ad campaign47 and also called for fighting atheism in general.48 A more general discussion about atheism, atheists writers, and Charles D ­ arwin and his theory of evolution were frequently mentioned. Similar tones were found in the other religiously oriented paper, Nederlands Dagblad. Seven articles discuss the Atheist bus campaign between January and April 2009. 10.4.3 Arrogant Atheism? Another paper discussing atheism in general and the billboard campaign directly several times was Trouw. Trouw is a daily newspaper rooted in Christian tradition, but not directed to a certain denomination. Apart from the daily news section, the paper has a special section, de Verdieping, which focuses on matters of religion, spirituality, and philosophy. This makes the paper a good arena for discussing the atheist ad campaign as well. Thirteen articles, book reviews and reader letters mentioned the atheist bus campaign in one way or another within the time frame examined. These included an opinion piece on the topic of scrapping the so-called blasphemy law from the constitution written by Floris van den Berg. In Trouw, the attitude toward the campaign was less univocal than in Reformatorisch Dagblad and Nederlands Dagblad, and the campaign was criticized, problematized, and also defended to some extent. On March 10 Trouw published an article written by Ilse Vooren. She wrote that the atheist ad campaign in the Netherlands was “initiated by a humanist who rejects all forms of religion.” Vooren then pointed out that “within the

45 46 47 48

“Reclame op de bus” Reformatorisch Dagblad, January 29, 2009. “Reclame op de bus”, Reformatorisch Dagblad, January 29, 2009. “We moeten onze kerken oproepen om… krachtig te protesteren bij busmaatschappijen.” Slogans op bussen, opinion, Reformatorisch Dagblad, February 3, 2009. Christen moet durven nd, Reformatorisch Dagblad, May 2, 2009.

THE NETHERLANDS: ATHEIST BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN

233

humanist ranks thoughts on the matter differ.”49 Vooren wrote about the discussion within the Humanistisch Verbond that revolved around the question as to whether, and to what extent, a humanist can also be religious. Floris van den Berg was clear on the matter: he sees no space for religion in humanism at all. But not everyone in the Humanistisch Verbond is of the same opinion. Another reader letter in Trouw examined the campaign and its relation to religious institutions from a more analytical point of view. Anton van Vijfeijken wrote that even though he initially felt uncomfortable about the atheist billboard campaign, he has realised that churches are always visible in the public spaces through the visibility of church buildings. Van Vijfeijken saw the atheist campaign as a logical consequence as they also want to be heard. He argued that there are two movements; assertive Christianity on one hand and assertive atheism on the other. In his view these movements strengthen each other. But he arrived at the conclusion that it is better to discuss things than to be hushed up about each other. Some reader letters sent to Trouw showed annoyance toward the campaign and Floris van den Berg. For example, Igor Celikovic commented on the billboard by saying that “it is not a long trip from from big bang to idiocy.” He defined himself as “atheist with sympathy for the middlemen” and asked how arrogant one must be to assume that a religious person does not think for him or herself, and that he or she knows nothing of enjoying life.50 Celikovic compared the atheist campaign to fundamentalist religion and saw both as unnecessary. Bert Appers wrote in reader letters that “it is indeed important to discuss the privileges of religion.” But, he stated, “belief in a God is something else than just a hobby.” Appers also stated that “common sense cannot decide, whether there is a God or not.”51 10.4.4 “Oh God, are the Atheists now getting retarded too?” nrc Handelsblad and nrc.next also published a short discussion concerning the atheist bus campaign. Ger Groot wrote an opinion to both nrc Handelsblad and the digital nrc.next. The two articles had very similar wording. The first was published in nrc Handelsblad on March 9 with the title “Reclamecampagne is ware athëist onwaarding; de ongelovige in mij zou het waarderen zich niet te hoeven schamen voor zijn medestanders” (“Advertising campaign is unworthy of true Atheist; the non-believer in me would appreciate not n ­ eeding to be 49 50 51

“Is ook het humanisme aan de goden overgeleverd?” Ilse Vooren Trouw, March 10, 2009. Igor Celikovic, “Oerknal of oerdom,” Trouw Lezers, pp. 36–37, March 14, 2009. Bert Appers, “ Religie geen hobbyclub,” Trouw Brieven Podium p. 28, March 19, 2009; “De Atheïsten zijn niet atheïstisch genoeg,” Trouw, April 4, 2009.

234

LEHTINEN

ashamed of his allies.”) Ger Groot wrote about his annoyance with the atheist bus campaign. The title of the similar article published in nrc.next on the next day summed up Groot’s view on the matter rather neatly: “O God, worden atheïsten nu ook achterlijk?” (“Oh God, are the Atheists now getting retarded too?”). In the article Groot complained that when the atheist bus campaign took place in Madrid, Spain, where he lives, he has had to make choices between taking an atheist bus and a believing one. He described the campaign and the counter-campaign that ensued as ‘kinderachtigheid’, childishness. He saw the debate as unnecessary and a waste of resources that could be better spent on other, more pressing issues, such as fighting climate change. A few days later Floris van den Berg responded to Groot’s opinion published in nrc.next. His letter, titled “Atheïsme is gewoon beter dan religie” (“Atheism is simply better than religion”) van den Berg explained the campaign in very much the same way he later did in his open letter to the school class in Amersfoort. He stated that the aim of the campaign was to send a political signal and to create discussion about the justification of the privileges religious institutions have in society. “Perhaps the religious people will now be asked for the justification of their claims, opinions and privileges,” he wrote,52 and pointed at government-funded religious schools as an example. He also claimed that religion should not have any more meaningful position in society than a hobby club. Religion is, in his view, still a “fountain of misery and ignorance,” and it is often antithetical to, for example, human rights, women’s emancipation, the rights of homosexuals, and free speech. He argued that Creationism, Intelligent Design and being against science in general are not “plus points for religion.” nrc Handelsblad published two opinion pieces, one by Rein Zunderdorp, the chair of Humanistisch Verbond, and the other by E.L. Van Dessel. Both defended the atheist bus campaign. Zunderdorp wrote that Groot’s advice not to make noise and limit themselves to a well-meaning dialogue with temperate religious people should not be followed. He referred to the “1929 Concorat,” apparently the Lateran treaties, and argues: “A humanist advertisement that attacks the basis of dogma and urges people to think for themselves, is only a modest beginning on a long way towards a civilized Europe.”53 Van Dessel wrote that it is an exaggeration to speak of the bus campaign as a missionary campaign. He defended the campaign, but in a somewhat milder tone than Zunderdorp. He agreed with Ger Groot in his compliments to the 52 53

“Atheïsme is gewoon beter dan religie,” nrc.Next, 13.02.2009. Rein Zunderdorp, “De bus en God – strijd schudt mensen wakker,” nrc Handelsblad, 14.02.2009.

THE NETHERLANDS: ATHEIST BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN

235

“believer without complexes,” but also stated that in his opinion, it is still easier to present oneself as a believer without complexes than an atheist without them.54 Here the idea of equal representation is emphasized. 10.5

Concluding Remarks

What came of the atheist ad campaign in the Netherlands? The activity did not stop with taking down the billboard. On May 30th, the first Dutch Atheism Day was organized in Utrecht, and other events have been organized since. The campaign did not provoke any great outrage, nor did it spark tremendous interest. The legal protests the campaign provoked came mainly from Orthodox Protestant circles, but critical voices were also heard from other atheists, humanists, and people defining themselves as nonreligious or agnostic. In public discussion, the campaign was at times linked together with the parliamentary debate about whether the law protecting religious freedoms is outdated and should be abolished. It became apparent that while talk about atheists was ongoing, especially in the Reformatorisch Dagblad and to some extent in Nederlands Dagblad, both Orthodox Protestant in inclination, the campaign in itself was not a huge topic, but one in a chain of a more general discussion. Did the campaign reach its goals and how did the discussion continue? The billboard did provoke some discussion about the topics it was intended to point out: the position religious institutions occupy in Dutch society and the desirability of this arrangement. Whether the billboard activated debates about different worldviews or really made people think for themselves is harder to evaluate. An interesting step in the discussion on religion and atheism took place in November 2009, during which a campaign called The Month of Spirituality55 was organised. Dutch author Kluun (a pseudonym used by Raymond van der Klundert) published a pamphlet titled “God is Gek. De Media dictatuur van het 54 55

E.L. Van Dessel, untitled opinion letter, nrc Handelsblad, 14.03.2009. The Month of Spirituality (De Maand van de Spiritualiteit) is a yearly campaign that, according to the organizers, aims at discussing spirituality “in a broad sense”[quote]. It was originally initiated by the broadcaster kro, Trouw, and Ten Have, a Dutch publishing house specialised in e.g. religion and philosophy. Since 2013 the Month of Spirituality is organized by Stichting cpnb. The activities include various events, lectures, and it highlights literature on the theme. Quote from de Maand van de Spiritualiteit, campaign website: http://www.maandvandespiritualiteit.nl/over-de-maand/. More information on the campaign and the partners can be found on the campaign website: http://www .maandvandespiritualiteit.nl/

236

LEHTINEN

nieuw Atheisme” (“God is Crazy. The Media Dictatorship of the New Atheism.”). In this pamphlet, Kluun spoke from an agnostic point of view and expressed his annoyance of what he called “missionary Atheism.” He stated that cultural elites and especially leftist intellectuals look down on religion. The pamphlet created plenty of discussion; some commentators saw Kluun’s agnostic or “ietsist”56 inclination and his analysis of atheism as ridiculous while others defended him and his views in the media. Perhaps this interest in Kluun’s pamphlet indicates something further regarding how some part of the public feel toward this assertive form of secularity. Finally, what can be said about the different cultural understandings or styles of secularity that Schuh et al. speak about in the Dutch context? I found the suggested ideal types of secularities useful tools in examining the debate. It is possible to perceive differences in the understanding of what secularity should mean; is it meant to safeguard religious liberties and individual freedoms against the group, or should it be a more strongly pronounced goal for the betterment of society? The viewpoint of multiple secularities would offer a good rough frame as a starting point for further analysis. In the light of my findings, it would seem analytically sound to examine the Dutch atheist ad campaign as part of the emerging new type of secularity, where cultural underpinnings do emphasise individual liberties and the protection of the individual against the social group, but also very strongly stress the view on secularity as the end goal and the means for overall betterment of society. The campaign brought up themes that could be grouped under both “secularity for the sake of civil liberties” and “secularity for the sake of national integrity and progress.” However, the overall tone, especially in the writings of Dr. Floris van den Berg, is clearly and unapologetically secular progressivist, arguing that although everyone should think for themselves, and although no worldview should be imposed on anyone, atheism is still better than religion, and religion should actively be discouraged as it hinders the progress towards humanist values and enlightenment though reason and scientific discovery. What also became very clear was the idea that could best be described as equal right of presentation. This was often brought to the table. It is mostly connected to the liberal notion of protecting the individual and also freedom of expression, but has a very distinct point. Equal presentation and the right to be visible were often brought up in both the rhetorics of the campaigners and in the ensuing debate. 56

“ietsisme” is a Dutch term that could be translated as “somethingism” (Dutch ‘iets’, ‘something’). “Ietsist” refers to a person who states that they believe in an unspecified “something.”

THE NETHERLANDS: ATHEIST BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN

237

As for the reactions the campaign provoked, it would seem that individual liberties as a basis for secularity was often accepted, among them the freedom of expression and the right to equal representation – even though the views on what actually is ‘equal’ varied. There were also many, and not just among the more traditionally religious, who expressed the view that secularity was important for the sake of religious toleration. The campaign was seen by many as too assertive and it did provoke some annoyed responses. As Schuh et al. conclude in their article, the shift in secularities is still contested in the Netherlands, and according to my study, this certainly is the case. References Appers, Bert. March 19, 2009. “Religie geen hobbyclub.” Trouw Brieven Podium. p. 28. “Atheïsme is gewoon beter dan religie.” nrc.next. 13.02.2009. Beantwoording Kamervragen lid Van der Staaij over een athëistische reclamecampagne op de bussen. March 4, 2009. http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/bestanden/documenten -en-publicaties/kamerstukken/2009/03/04/20091312-beantwoording-kamervragen -lid-van-der-staaij-over-een-atheistische-reclamecampagne-op-bussen/20091312 .pdf (accessed August 12, 2015). Bond tegen vloeken website: http://www.bondtegenvloeken.nl/over-bond-tegen-vloe ken/visie-missie/. “Bord A28 Staphorst moeten weg.” RTV Oost. 17.03.2009. http://www.rtvoost.nl/archief/ default.aspx?nid=94688. “Bord bij Staphorst tegen goddeloze borden.” RTV Oost. 16.03.2009. http://www.rtvoost .nl/nieuws/?nid=94678. CBS Statline. “Christen moet durven nd.” Reformatorisch Dagblad. May 2, 2009. “Christen weet dat God bestaat.” Reformatorisch Dagblad. February 13, 2009. “De Atheïsten zijn niet atheïstisch genoeg.” Trouw. April 4, 2009. Eurobarometer 2005. Ger Groot. February 9, 2009. “Reclamecampagne is ware athëist onwaardig.” NRC Handelsblad. Houtman, Dick and Ribberink, Peter. 2010. “Te ongelovig om atheïst te zijn: Over deprivatisering van ongeloof.” Religie & samenleving. Vol. 5.3: 209–226. http://www.rtvoost.nl/nieuws/?nid=94678. http://www.rtvoost.nl/archief/default.aspx?cat=61&nid=94728. Igor Celikovic. March 14, 2009. “Oerknal of oerdom.” Trouw Lezers. pp. 36–37. “Is ook het humanisme aan de goden overgeleverd?” Ilse Vooren. Trouw. March 10, 2009.

238

LEHTINEN

Kluun, 2010. God is gek. De diktatuur van het athëisme. Amsterdam: Podium. Knippenberg, Hans. 2005. “The Netherlands: Selling Churches and Building Mosques.” In Changing Religious Landscape of Europe. Edited by Hans Knippenberg. Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis. Nova. Broadcasted on January 28, 2009. http://www.ntr.nl/player?id=NPS_1123045&ss id=203. “Omstreden tekst niet op Brabantse bussen.” Omroep Brabant. 11.03.2009. http://www .omroepbrabant.nl/?news/1148671193/Omstreden+tekst+niet+op+Brabantse+buss en.aspx. Reclame Code Commissie. afwijzing. 2009/00254. “Reclame op de bus.” Reformatorisch Dagblad. January 29, 2009. Ribberink, Achterberg and Houtman. 2013. “Deprivatization of Disbelief?: Non­Religiosity and Anti-Religiosity in 14 Western European Countries.” Politics and Religion. Vol.6.1. March: 101–120. Schuh, Cora, Burchard, Maria and Wohlrab-Sahr, Monika. 2012. “Contested Secularities: Religious Minorities and Secular Progressivism in the Netherlands.” Journal of Religion in Europe. Vol. 5. 3: 349–383. “Slogans op bussen.” Opinion. Reformatorisch Dagblad. February 3, 2009. Stevan website. http://www.stevan.nl/over-stevan.html. Stichting Reclame Code. https://www.reclamecode.nl/bijlagen/dutch_advertising _code.pdf. Stichting Reclame Code. Afwijzing. April 27, 2009. https://www.reclamecode.nl/webu itspraak.asp?ID=11259&acCode. Floris van den Berg. April 2, 2009. “An Open Letter the the Loodenstein class.” Published on the website of Nederlands Dagblad. http://www.nd.nl/images/library/ PDF/briefklaslodenstein.pdf. Floris van den Berg. March 14, 2009. “Schrap vrijheid van godsdienst uit Grondwet.” Trouw. Floris Van den Berg. 2014. Interview. Van der Veer, Peter. 2006. “Pim Fortuyn, Theo van Gogh, and the Politics of Tolerance in the Netherlands.” In Political Theologies. Public Religions in a Post-Secular World. Edited by Hent de Vries & Lawrence Eugene Sullivan. New York: Fordham University Press. E.L. Van Dessel. 14.03.2009. Untitled opinion letter. NRC Handelsblad. “We moeten onze kerken oproepen om… krachtig te protesteren bij busmaatschappijen.” Rein Zunderdorp, Rein. 14.02.2009. “De bus en God – strijd schudt mensen wakker.” NRC Handelsblad.

chapter 11

New Zealand: The Atheist Bus Campaign in New Zealand; From Buses to Billboards William James Hoverd and Katja Strehle 11.1 Introduction As the atheist bus campaign commenced in the United Kingdom (uk) in 2008, awareness of that campaign moved like wildfire across the globe through various mainstream and social media. Conscious of the uk atheist bus campaign, the New Zealand campaign began to gain momentum in 2009. What was particularly unique to the New Zealand campaign was that it met significant resistance from the major bus service provider in the country and, eventually, the New Zealand atheist bus campaign evolved from being a “bus” campaign to a “billboard” based campaign. Drawing mainly on primary data, this chapter chronicles the development and eventual cessation of the New Zealand atheist bus campaign, and sets that atheist bus narrative into the broader New Zealand landscape of religion and no-religion. The chapter draws its content from primary data drawn from face-to-face semi-structured interviews with three of the New Zealand atheist bus campaign’s informal organising group, in combination with support from the web-based sources, that still are locatable, which commented upon or documented the campaign. The chapter’s content begins by focusing on the origin of the campaign in the New Zealand context, before shifting to discuss the initial public reactions to the campaign, through the national media and through its resultant fundraising success. The discussion then shifts to explain how the campaign met resistance from the nz Bus Company when it came to displaying the campaign’s atheist slogans on their buses, and then we detail how this resistance from nz Bus led to the atheist bus campaign becoming a billboard-based campaign. The chapter then specifies how the nz campaign crowd sourced localised slogans to post on its billboard campaign, before shifting to document the implementation of the billboard campaign in July 2010. Finally, the chapter attempts to analyse the lasting contribution of the New Zealand atheist billboard campaign to atheist sentiment in both the general rates of nonreligion in the population and through an analysis of individual responses to the New Zealand slogans. We conclude by highlighting the unique elements of the New Zealand atheist bus campaign and argue that this specific campaign offers an excellent example

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004328532_012

240

HOVERD AND STREHLE

that demonstrates how a small informal, but motivated group of unaffiliated actors can, using a variety of media sources, create significant gains for their atheist position both within localities and across a nation. 11.2

The Beginnings of the New Zealand Atheist Bus Campaign

From the very outset, the New Zealand atheist bus campaign was a spontaneous grassroots campaign organised by an informal gathering of like-minded and self-motivated individuals for the purpose of a single project, rather than being sponsored by any formal atheist group or as part of a longer-term permanent atheist campaign. Following the initial publicity surrounding the uk campaign, in early 2008, a few one-off individual contacts were made to the New Zealand Humanist Society in Wellington enquiring about whether there were any local plans to launch a similar type of campaign in New Zealand. In January 2008, a small meeting of mostly unaffiliated atheists occurred in a Wellington café which was devoted to exploring a variety of ideas dedicated to replicating the uk atheist bus campaign. However, nothing resulted immediately from this first meeting and, consequently; any notion of a New Zealand bus campaign receded for approximately six months, according to Simon Fisher (who was later to front the media on the campaign’s behalf). Then in June 2009, an informal core group of four people, including our interview participants Simon Fisher, Helen Breeze and Tim Wright, (all of whom loosely identified as atheist), to launch a New Zealand atheist bus campaign. The New Zealand Humanist Society offered the informal group administrative support regarding fundraising, as well as tacit informal support, but otherwise decided not to get officially involved with the New Zealand atheist bus campaign. The New Zealand group’s initial plan was to “replicate” the British campaign sponsoring advertisements on the sides of local buses, running in the public transport system of the three largest cities, namely Auckland, Christchurch, and the capital Wellington. The organisers planned to utilise and replicate the primary bus campaign slogan employed in the uk, “There is Probably No God, Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life” word-for-word. The New Zealand group contacted the uk campaign organisers for permission to replicate the original slogan. Permission was granted to utilise the slogan and access was given to website material from the uk campaign, and that was the only time that the New Zealand group had any direct contact with another nation’s atheist bus organizers. By December 2009, the campaign had been organised sufficiently to publicly commence. Very early into the campaign an enquiry was made to I-sight,

NEW ZEALAND: FROM BUS TO BILLBOARD

241

the privately owned company in charge of advertising for nz Bus, the largest bus company in New Zealand at the time. nz Bus was the primary service provider for buses in the cities of Wellington and Auckland. The initial response from I-sight was positive and indicated that they would be prepared to accept and display the atheist campaign on their buses. The financial target for fundraising to publish the ads through I-sight had been set to $10,000 nzd. With an indication that the campaign should be able to proceed in terms of advertising on the buses, the next necessary step was to seek to raise money for the campaign, and in doing so, test the acceptance and reaction of the New Zealand public to the atheist campaign and its messages. 11.3

The Initial Public Reaction to the New Zealand Atheist Bus Campaign

Simon Fisher, who had organically assumed the position of campaign spokesperson, became the media face (in terms of television,1 Facebook2 and eventually a website) for the New Zealand atheist bus campaign. A website (now taken down)3 was put up to supply the public with information (and in return allow the public to provide feedback), and through content and press releases. Naturally, the first entry consisted of a press release on December 10, 2009, which informed the media, and then subsequently the New Zealand public, about the campaign and its fundraising goal. The press release stated: Following the success of the original uk campaign and other campaigns around the world, a positive message of atheism and humanism will soon be travelling around on nz buses. The New Zealand Atheist Bus Campaign plans to put ads carrying atheist and humanist messages on buses in major nz cities, encouraging Kiwis to think critically about their beliefs.4 1 2 3 4

1 “Atheist Bus Campaign,” One Network News, December 16, 2009. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=dtyJ8AMBBzo (accessed September 9, 2014). 2 New Zealand Atheist Bus Campaign, https://www.facebook.com/nzatheistbus (accessed September 9, 2014). 3 The New Zealand Atheist Bus Campaign, http://www.nogod.org.nz/ No longer accessible. The authors of this chapter were briefly given access to the now closed website content in February 2014. 4 New Zealand Atheist Bus Campaign, Press Release, December 10, 2009.

242

HOVERD AND STREHLE

Clearly, the New Zealand atheist bus campaign intended to draw upon the success of the uk campaign and intended to replicate that campaign, but with a specific message for the New Zealand public. The specific message of the initial press release argued that the main goal of the New Zealand campaign was to “[…] get people to think critically about their religious beliefs, and rationally about the world in general.”5 Clearly, this message demonstrates the organisers’ intent to use the campaign to promote a positive humanist worldview and promote awareness of that message to the New Zealand public. Additionally, the New Zealand campaign seemed to have been motivated by a desire for social change in terms of what the group felt was acceptable religious expression and what was not considered acceptable religious expression by the New Zealand media and public. The media release indicates frustration from the leadership of the atheist bus campaign around the acceptability of atheism and public Christian expression in New Zealand. Alongside the promotion of their atheist and humanist views, the campaign message was also constructed as oppositional to, or at least express a frustration with specific localised forms of evangelical Christianity which had been very publically action oriented in the mid-2000s in terms of Fundamentalist Christian protest against certain liberal state reforms. The initial Press release also stated: While New Zealand is by and large a very tolerant and inclusive society, there is still stigma associated with an atheistic position. At the same time, we have recently seen the growing influence of radical religious groups such Brian Tamaki’s Destiny Church. With this campaign we hope to encourage positive debate on these issues – religion should not be a taboo topic. Consequently, the bus campaign gave atheists and humanists the opportunity to also receive public attention similar to the way that in 2004, Brian Tamaki’s Destiny Church, a large Pentecostal mega-church, marched some 5000 protestors upon the New Zealand Parliament decrying the legislation which had legalised same sex civil unions and the legalisation of prostitution.6 The bus campaign clearly had certain concerns about this type of public religious expression. In New Zealand, one particular advantage that smaller interest groups such as the atheist bus campaign and Destiny Church have, compared to their counterparts in larger nations is that the small size of the nation means 5 6

5 Ibid. 6 Mike Mawson, 2006, “Enough is Enough! Civil Unions, Religious Prejudice and the Limits of Secular Tolerance,” Australian Religious Studies Review 9 (1): 1–26.

NEW ZEALAND: FROM BUS TO BILLBOARD

243

that when they act publically and generate publicity their action tends to easily become national news. Similar to the way that Destiny Church had received significant national media attention; the atheist bus campaign was also very successful in gaining the focus of the national media organisations. National media quickly picked up and responded to the December 10 2009 press release7 and focused upon stories based around the atheist bus campaign launch. The press release contained within it information about the goals of the project and also included the request for donations to enable the campaign to be launched. Spokesperson Simon Fisher became a sought after interview partner for various television and radio shows. Quite often, a counterpart, representing the religious community (generally Christian), was also present when he was on air.8 It is difficult to discern whether this oppositional type of media was sought after by Simon Fisher or instead was orchestrated by the media in order to further stimulate debate or elicit possible provocative sound bites. Regardless, it seems that the atheist bus campaign was portrayed by the New Zealand media as partially oppositional to religion, despite the desire to focus upon spreading a humanist and atheist message. This oppositional theme was to be exacerbated in the eventual shift from a bus campaign to billboard campaign. Despite the media setting the atheist bus campaign in opposition to organised religion, it seems that overall the media commentators themselves displayed a neutral to mildly positive attitude toward the campaign. For example; Radio New Zealand stated “Well, there is probably no god, so stop worrying and enjoy life. Perhaps not to advise that would be welcomed by the religiously inclined, but it is a message that they may have to get used to […]”9 Interestingly, this type of message from the supposed neutral presenters on the Nation’s primary news and culture radio resonated a supportive view in terms of the atheist campaign and assisted to continue the oppositional theme between atheism and religion, without these commentators going as far as completely supporting the campaign. Overall, the media attention served the campaign beneficially in two primary ways. First, as already highlighted, the publicity allowed the atheist bus campaign to deliver their message and goals to a national audience thus maximising their traditional media exposure, and ­second, 7 8 9

7 New Zealand Atheist Bus Campaign, Press Release, December 10, 2009. 8 See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtyJ8AMBBzo (accessed September 9, 2014). 9 “Atheists plan Anti God Slogans on Buses,” Radio New Zealand, Morning Report, December 11, 2009, http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/mnr/2009/12/11/atheists_plan_anti-god_slo gans_on_buses.

244

HOVERD AND STREHLE

­accessing this large national audience then allowed opportunity for the fundraising component of the campaign to succeed. Indeed, to say the fundraising was a success would be an understatement; this is because the initial target of collecting $10,000 nzd of public crowd sourced donations was reached within 36 hours of the public campaign launch on December 10th, 2009. Encouraged by this positive response, the New Zealand atheist bus campaign decided to raise the financial goal to $20,000 nzd. The intention behind the larger fundraising goal was to double the amount of buses carrying the atheist ads. All the donations were collected online through the website www.givealittle.co.nz.10 In total, the crowd sourced fundraising website raised $23,413.12 nzd from some 622 donations.11 The money was then held administratively in a New Zealand Humanist Society bank account.12 The New Zealand Humanist Society is a charitable organisation and thus had the advantage of being able to accept and retain the fundraised money tax-free. In addition to the traditional media exposure that Simon Fisher garnered from television and radio appearances, social media appears to have played a significant role in spreading the atheist bus campaign information and message. Moreover, social media likely was able to reach a younger more technological demographic of the population who were less likely to follow traditional media. The message on the campaign’s website read: “Of course we now doubled our target, so we need your help to continue spreading the message. Post on Facebook, tweet about it, get involved in the huge number of discussions going on around the web, and talk to your friends and family about it.”13 The new target was met on December 14, only five days after the campaign had been launched. Why was the campaign a financial success? All in all, 622 New Zealanders were motivated to donate to the campaign, which of a total population of approximately 4 million in 2010, is a relatively small number of people. There are a few differing arguments that can be made regarding what this funding actually represented. One argument could be that the financial support was the tip of the iceberg in terms of atheist support in New Zealand, whereas an opposing argument might suggest that this funding represented the limit of atheist support in the country. The number of donations raises important questions about the overall impact of the campaign in terms of whether it was 10 11 12 13

10

“New Zealand Atheist Bus Campaign,” https://www.givealittle.co.nz/cause/nzabc (acces­ sed September 9, 2014). 11 Ibid. 12 Author Interview with Helen Breeze February, 2014. 13 The New Zealand Atheist Bus Campaign, http://www.nogod.org.nz/ No longer accessible.

NEW ZEALAND: FROM BUS TO BILLBOARD

245

a ­motivated minority or represented a general sentiment of the population, and in the final section of the chapter we turn to a consideration of whether the campaign has had any lasting impact on the New Zealand population. Suffice to say that the campaign ensured its financial viability through a combination of traditional and social media saturation, using a crowd sourced funding website, becoming a national campaign and importantly, through maintaining modest financial goals, commensurate with its support base. Other public reactions to the commencement of the New Zealand atheist bus ads were more mixed. The group did receive a wide variety of hate-based reactions and comments from individual public members.14 Despite these difficult individual reactions, when it came to responses from religious groups, the overall response was predominantly respectful: “I am pleased with the majority of the responses from religious groups, even if I disagree with their arguments against the message and intent of the campaign. They have mostly been positive and supportive of the campaign due to its ability to raise discussion of the issues of belief in god and religion’s role in society”15 wrote spokesmen Fisher. Therefore, when it came to forging a public profile, the campaign managed, during its first week, to avoid entering into any messy or contentious debate with either religious groups or media commentators. Overall, the initial reaction to the atheist bus campaign in its first week between December 10, 2009, and December 16, 2009, was extremely positive. The campaign made a clear impact across a variety of social media and traditional national media where it was front-page news or aired in prime times. Simon Fisher managed to deliver a positive humanist message and clearly represent the goals of the campaign, despite his message sometimes being set in opposition to religion by the media, and crucially, the campaign also managed to avoid entering into any messy debates or arguments with journalists or religious figures, thus ensuring that the campaign message was philosophically well-meaning and generally positive. By December 16, the initial media success was buoyed by significant financial support to ensure that the campaign could financially commission the atheist bus slogans to deliver its message on the nation’s buses. 14 15

14 15

We see no need to present these comments in this chapter. Rather it is simply important to note that they occurred. “New Zealand Atheist Bus Campaign meets its Fund Raising Target in Under a Week,” Ken Perrot, December 16, 2009. http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/nz-atheist -bus-campaign-reaches-fund-raising-target-in-under-a-week/ (accessed September 9, 2014).

246 11.4

HOVERD AND STREHLE

From Atheist Bus Campaign to Atheist Billboard Campaign

We now turn to chart how the New Zealand atheist bus campaign evolved from being a bus based campaign to becoming a billboard campaign. In early December 2009, during the early heady media and financial successes of the campaign, there was little indication that its progress and message would be subsequently hindered by the bus company: Wayne Chapman, chief executive of I-Site, the company responsible for nz bus advertising, says the campaign is at the ‘more polarising end of the spectrum’ but didn’t think the ads breached New Zealand advertising standards. Even so, he says he will wait until he lays eyes on the final creative execution, which he believes is exactly the same as that featured on the uk buses, before giving it the go ahead.16 Indeed, throughout December 2009, there was no indication or sentiment expressed to indicate that the bus company would not be prepared to host the slogans. After the financial target was met, negotiations with the nz Bus and its advertising company I-sight began just before Christmas. However, after Christmas 2009, something changed in terms of support for the atheist bus campaign messaging somewhere within I-sight and nz Bus. Typically January, in the southern hemisphere, is the height of summer and most people take significant amounts of leave, children and teenagers are on break from their schooling, and most companies just maintain their core business or close down over the period. As such, January is considered a problematic time to conduct business or to seek to advertise new ventures, such as the bus campaign. Consequently, through January 2010, room opened for the campaign’s momentum to slow and, in the case of nz Bus, for opinions to change. In February 2010, the atheist bus campaign looked to negotiate with nz Bus to host the slogans on 24 buses. The nz Bus Company, who had initially appeared to have tentatively approved hosting the atheist bus campaign’s ads on their buses in major city centres (Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch), rejected the advertisements, claiming that they had received a number of complaints from the public about the proposed ads.17 Later, they added that 16 17

16

17

“The Wheels on the Atheist Bus Go Round and Round,” December 10, 2009. Ben Fahey, http://www.stoppress.co.nz/blog/2009/12/the-wheels-on-the-atheist-bus-go-round-andround/ (accessed September 9, 2014). Author Interview with Tim Wright February, 2014.

NEW ZEALAND: FROM BUS TO BILLBOARD

247

staff and the public expressed “distaste and distress” at the campaign.18 To Simon Fisher and the other organisers of the New Zealand Atheist Bus campaign, this reaction from nz Bus appeared to be discriminatory. “In a way, the rejection by nz Bus has shown why this campaign is needed in the first place. The message of atheism is not accepted in the public, showing the double standard between religious and nonreligious messages,”19 said Fisher. Here Fisher returned to the message with which the atheist group started their campaign, that they find that public expressions of atheist and humanist views are problematic rather than generally accepted in New Zealand. Furthermore, in the face of New Zealand Bus Company’s refusal to air the slogans, the Campaign’s language became slightly more oppositional in terms of the relationship between public atheist expression and public religious expression. Fisher went on to argue that “It’s concerning that peaceful atheist messages are not allowed on buses while religious messages are often seen on buses and in public. Messages of atheism are rare in New Zealand and we aim to raise awareness for the one-third of New Zealanders who are unconvinced by the claims of religion.”20 Importantly, the impasse between the nz Bus and the New Zealand Atheist Bus Campaign, also received additional national media coverage. Indeed, this change in anticipated proceedings was widely covered by New Zealand media; indeed the atheist bus campaign received additional journalistic attention after New Zealand Bus’ refusal to run the ads. Once the campaign actually became contentious and potentially fractious through the cessation of a commercial relationship with nz Bus, the deadlock was quickly picked up and documented on national tv news,21 various webpages and a variety of print media. The deadlock was also the subject of an online poll. The popular news website www.stuff.co.nz asked its readership to vote on the following question: “Was nz Bus right to reject ads from an atheist group?” 7949 votes were counted in the online poll, 92.5% of participants agreed to the answer: “No, this is unfair and discriminatory.” Only a minority, 3.8% (301 voters) stated, that “Yes, the ads are in bad taste and would distress people.” Almost the same amount of people, 297, which reads 3.7%, agreed with the additional 18 19 20 21

18

19 20 21

Whilst conducting our research for this chapter, we were unable to gain comment from New Zealand Bus Company or from I-Sight. Consequently, all our commentary in this section is gained through the primary interview data collected from the Atheist Bus Campaign Organisers or from media websites. Kelly Burns, Dominion Post, 24.02.2010. Press Release, 23. 02. 2010. 3news, tvnz, breakfast-news.

248

HOVERD AND STREHLE

­statement: “The ­extra ­publicity is good for the atheist campaign anyway.”22 And it appears that the readers were indeed correct; 622 people had felt motivated enough to financially support the atheist campaign in December 2009. Additionally, in February 2010 almost 8000 New Zealanders felt engaged enough with the atheist issue to express an opinion on the thwarted goals of the atheist bus campaign. The resultant public scrutiny of the lack of headway with the nz Bus appears, whilst eventually leading to changing the type of message campaign, likely to have had a positive net affect for the atheist bus campaign, in terms of generating a public awareness around their atheist and humanist messages. Even senior members of some religious groups publically disagreed with nz Bus’ refusal to host the slogans. For example, Archdeacon Glynn Cardy from St. Lukes Presbyterian Church in Remuera, Auckland, told the New Zealand Herald newspaper, that he found nz Bus’ decision to stop the display of paid adverts showing atheistic slogans regrettable. He further added “Many in the Christian community welcome a debate about issues of the existence of God and, also, I don’t think there’s anything to be afraid of in that debate.”23 Despite this wide ranging public support for the right of the atheist bus campaign to discuss the existence of God, nz Bus stood resolute. nz Bus’s refusal to run the ads delivered a deathblow to the desire to host the campaign on buses. nz Bus is the largest bus company in New Zealand; it claims to transport some 30 million New Zealanders each year in the cities of Auckland (the largest population) and Wellington (the national Capital).24 Effectively, nz Bus had a monopoly on bus service provision in these two cities, and without the company’s cooperation the New Zealand atheist bus campaign was never going to be able to proceed beyond concept to implementation as a bus advertising campaign. The atheist bus campaign did attempt to engage with nz Bus to see if there could be a possible resolution to this issue. They also attempted mediation sessions through the New Zealand Human Rights Commission. However, nz Bus simply refused to participate. Fisher said: “Just to get everyone in a room, to have a chat and maybe try to come to some sort of compromise, maybe change the wording, change the bus routes to minimize harm, but they weren’t having a bar of that and they effectively put a wall up and said ‘we do not 22 23 24

22

23 24

“Atheists Claim Bias Over Rejection of No God Ads.” Kelly Burns, February 24, 2012, http:// www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/national/3366649/Atheists-claim-bias-over-rejec tion-of-No-God-ads (accessed September 9, 2014). http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10629319. nz Bus, http://www.NZBus.co.nz/ (accessed September 9, 2014).

NEW ZEALAND: FROM BUS TO BILLBOARD

249

want to participate in these discussions’. That is a shame.”25 The sentiment of the campaign was reinforced by it receiving a large number of supporting and encouraging comments from atheists, non-believers as well as religious groups who also saw the action of nz Bus as wrong and unjust. Due to the refusal of nz Bus to discuss the matter or to try to reach any agreement, the organisers of the campaign turned to investigate the option of taking their case to the Human Rights Review Tribunal. This tribunal is a statutory body that deals with matters relating to some aspects of domestic human rights law, including unlawful discrimination, sexual harassment and racial harassment, amongst other things. The Tribunal further deals with cases brought about in terms of discrimination due to religious belief or lack of religious belief under the Human Rights Act 1993. The aforementioned act, in Section 44 (1) states: It shall be unlawful for any person who supplies goods, facilities, or services to the public or any section of the public, (a) To refuse or fail on demand to provide any other person with those goods, facilities or services; or (b) To treat any other person less favourably in connection with the provision of those goods, facilities, or services than would otherwise be the case, by reason of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination. The prohibited grounds of discrimination are stated in Section 21(1) (d) as including (d) Ethical belief, which means the lack of a religious belief, whether in respect of a particular religion or religions or all religions.26 Clearly, the atheist bus campaign organisers felt that they had a Human Rights Act grievance in that they viewed nz Bus’ refusal to supply their campaign with a service as being based upon their lack of a religious belief being offensive. Consequently, the atheist bus campaign organisers, supported by the Humanist Society of New Zealand, applied for legal representation from the Office of Human Rights Proceedings. In March 2010, the New Zealand Human Rights Review Tribunal found that indeed there was a potential case. At this stage, the Tribunal’s process floundered and a decision on a review was deferred for an unspecified amount of time. Because these legal proceedings were going to be lengthy and the organisers did not want to lose momentum by waiting until the decision had been made, they invited the public via their web and Facebook page to express possible alternative options in terms of how they might want to see the atheist slogans publically displayed. 25 26

25 26

Interview data drawn from Simon Fisher, February 2014. Section 44 (1) New Zealand Human Rights Act 1993.

250

HOVERD AND STREHLE

While waiting for the Tribunal’s decision, the atheist bus campaign organisers came to the decision to launch an atheist billboard campaign instead of an atheist bus campaign. They would use half of the money on erecting billboards with their slogans and retain the other half of the donations to fund a bus campaign in case the tribunal eventually found in their favour. It was decided that billboards were to be erected in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, with the idea to subsequently relocate those boards and to put them up in smaller cities. The refusal of nz Bus to host the slogans on their buses in Wellington and Auckland, and the monopoly which the company held in terms of bus services in those two towns was the catalyst which resulted in the New Zealand atheist bus campaign evolving into the New Zealand atheist billboard campaign. Even today, in 2014, nz Bus is still not prepared to discuss why they did not want to host the slogans. There remains no clear elucidation of a philosophical, political or religious basis to their opposition; quite simply they just refused to engage with the atheist bus campaign organisers from February 2010. Despite the frustration this silence caused the local campaign organisers and the consequence of shifting toward a billboard campaign, the nz campaign did receive some benefits from the standoff in terms of additional media coverage and what appears to be a wider awareness of the campaign’s message from the New Zealand public. Moreover, the shift towards crowdsourcing ideas for an alternative campaign (i.e., the billboards) was also to lead to a crowdsourcing of additional slogans for the campaign and it also had the added effect of returning the campaign back to its support base for continued engagement. 11.5

Developing the New Zealand Atheist Slogans

Another unique element of the New Zealand billboard campaign was that it developed its own slogans to be displayed above or alongside the global slogan. From the outset of the New Zealand atheist bus campaign in December 2009, there had been significant debate in Simon Fisher’s media appearances over the use of the word “probably” in the original uk slogan, which was also intended to be used in New Zealand. Fisher said it was important to use the same message that has been used in every other country where the campaign was occurring, as the slogan really connected the New Zealand efforts into the whole world-wide campaign. Fisher stated: […]from a media point of view, to actually get press. It is far easier for a journalist to say ‘this ties into the international campaign and its ­coming

NEW ZEALAND: FROM BUS TO BILLBOARD

251

to New Zealand’ as opposed to some other random thing that started here. So it gives us backing and some form of official status, to use the same colours, the same design and the same wording.27 In this quote it is evident that the New Zealand Campaign organisers saw it as both integral and advantageous to their efforts to be tied into the global atheist bus campaign. We also noted earlier that there was only one contact between the New Zealand atheist bus campaign and the mature uk campaign. However, Fisher indicated that despite any formal or articulated set of goals, his group saw themselves as an official offshoot of a global atheist bus campaign. Importantly, the New Zealand atheist bus campaign offers an interesting example that demonstrates how a small informal – yet motivated – group of unaffiliated actors can identify with a global movement and employ a variety of media sources to create significant gains for their atheist position across their nation. But in doing so, an informal group, unbound by formal objectives, communiques, or a set of predefined goals, can then extrapolate the general principles of a global movement into their own national context. In New Zealand, the group evolved the slogans employed in global context into more localised slogans. Probably one of their most original ideas after shifting to the billboard campaign was to prompt their supporters and the general public to come up with slogans, which were specific to and for New Zealanders. The atheist bus campaign organisers wanted their new slogans to “[…]retain the original ‘No God’ slogan as a logo for the campaign. The branding already built up around the ‘No God’ slogan gives us a great opportunity to explore some other catchy phrases that express atheism and get people to stop and think.”28 The atheist bus campaign sought to elicit a variety of potential billboard slogans from its supporters through its www.nogod.co.nz website. According to spokesman Simon Fisher, the campaign received around 900 entries; some submitted examples included: • Over one-third of New Zealanders are good without God. You can be too. [or: Are you good without God? Over a million kiwis are.] • We need God like a fish needs a bicycle. • If there was a God, then one of his key mistakes was making me an Atheist. [paraphrased Gervais quote] • Think Rationally. Accept Evidence. Reject Faith. • Question everything, including pixies, leprechauns and God. 27 28

27 28

Interview data drawn from Simon Fisher, February 2014. Interview data drawn from Simon Fisher, February 2014.

252

HOVERD AND STREHLE

• We are all Atheists about most religions. Some of us just go one god further. Atheism • Are you also Agnostic about the existence of Unicorns or Zeus? Get off the fence. Atheism • When you understand why you dismiss other gods you will understand why I dismiss yours. Atheism • To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today. – Isaac Asimov • It will yet be the proud boast of women that they never contributed a line to the Bible. – George W. Foote • Question with boldness even the existence of a god – Thomas Jefferson • Don’t believe in God? You’re not alone. • You can be good without God. • Why believe in God? Just be good for goodness’ sake. • In the beginning, Man created God.29 Further to just submitting the slogans, the organisers also set up a so-called ‘Billboard Generator’ on the website, so that the submitted slogans could then be viewed in the design that would be put up. In the end, it came down to three slogans being used. They are replicated here: As you can see, the New Zealand Atheist Billboard Campaign replicated the global slogan on the bottom of its own slogans, but inserted a locally sourced slogan above the original slogan. Importantly, if the campaign did indeed receive 900 or so slogans it again demonstrates that there was a modicum of enthusiastic local engagement backing the campaign. Moreover, this engagement through slogan generation localised the global campaign into the New Zealand context. Specifically, the slogan: “Good Without God? Over One Million Kiwis Are.” This slogan referred to the 2006 national census data which had recorded that 33% of New Zealanders had affiliated as having No ­Religion.30 Moreover, the slogan used the colloquial term “Kiwi” which cleverly attempted to draw upon national sentiment to strive for further impact and local i­dentification. The remaining two slogans were also very shrewd, the second, in terms of its play on the genesis story of creation and the third, through its critique of monotheism and polytheism. 29 30

29 30

Sourced from The New Zealand Atheist Bus Campaign, http://www.nogod.org.nz/ No longer accessible. William J. Hoverd, 2008, “No Longer a Christian Country, Religious Demographic Change in New Zealand 1966–2006,” New Zealand Sociology, Volume 23 No 1: 41–55.

NEW ZEALAND: FROM BUS TO BILLBOARD

253

At the beginning of July 2010 a press release was launched, stating that the billboard campaign was about to begin: “We’re excited about this opportunity to promote these thoughtful slogans and hope they’ll get people to stop and think.”31 Organisers also re-opened the call for donations, this time for funding for the canvases to be moved to other cities: “If a community wants to put one of our billboards up in their area they can contact us, arrange a location, and we’ll be delighted to lend them the canvas.”32 Also, donors could add a comment through the donating site www.givalittle.co.nz and express their preferences for which cities the canvas should be displayed. Indeed, the campaign organisers saw the potential transferability of the billboards from major city to provincial city as a unexpected benefit out of the shift to this type of advertisement which was not possible in a purely bus based campaign.33 The need for additional fundraising was also due to the campaign retaining sufficient funding to finance a bus campaign, if the Human Rights Tribunal ruled in their favour. Naturally, the commencement of the Billboard campaign attracted media and public interest. In late July/early August 2010, twelve billboards were erected around the cities of Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch displaying the three slogans displayed previously (Figures 11.1–11.3). While one billboard in Wellington was taken down following a complaint from a business owner, the remaining eleven billboards were erected, displayed for four to twelve weeks and then eventually taken down. In addition, two smaller regional cities in the North Island, Hamilton and New Plymouth, subsequently had billboards ­relocated to those two cities. In terms of existing as a formal group, the

Figure 11.1  New Zealand atheist billboard slogan generated by now defunct www.nogodnz.co.nz website

31 32 33

31 “nz Atheists Swap Buses for Billboards,” http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/485434 -nz-atheists-swap-buses-for-billboards (accessed September 9, 2014). 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid.

254

HOVERD AND STREHLE

Figure 11.2  New Zealand atheist billboard slogan generated by now defunct www.nogodnz .co.nz website

Figure 11.3  New Zealand atheist billboard slogan generated by now defunct www.nogodnz .co.nz website

New Zealand atheist bus campaign organisers effectively dissipated after the billboards were successfully erected. Today, the Human Rights complaint remains unresolved, the New Zealand Humanist Society still holds approximately $10,000 of crowd sourced funding for the Bus Advertisements, and the organisers have dispersed around the country and generally feel that they accomplished what they set out to achieve which was to raise the profile of atheist and humanist views in New Zealand. While they didn’t exactly replicate the bus campaign, they did effectively gain a series of media opportunities to present their message and were able to repeatedly return to their support base for assistance, potentially reinforcing the views of their support base and illustrating the frustrations that humanists and atheists find when it comes to expressing their views in public. In this last ­section, we now turn to assess whether the New Zealand atheist bus campaign has had any lasting impact on New Zealand and nonreligion in the nation. 11.6

Has There been Any Lasting Impact from the New Zealand Atheist Bus Campaign?

The New Zealand atheist bus campaign occurred in an island nation with a relatively small population of some 4.5 million, with a very high rate of

NEW ZEALAND: FROM BUS TO BILLBOARD

255

Figure 11.4  Atheist billboard displayed in Wellington, New Zealand, August 2010.34

34

34

Atheism and Secularism in New Zealand, http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/photograph/30476/ atheist-billboard-campaign (accessed 9th of September 2014).

256

HOVERD AND STREHLE

nonreligion in the population.35 Up until 1987, the Nation’s population was culturally constituted primarily of Anglo-European migrants and Indigenous Maori. However, since 1987, increased immigration has seen the population become increasingly multicultural, with significant populations of Pacific Island and Asian New Zealanders. This migration pattern, along with certain changing social values, has seen a corresponding and significant decline in the percentages of the population who identify with a Christian denomination or grouping.36 In the 1966 National Census of Population and Dwellings, some 89.14 percent of the total population identified as belonging to a Christian denomination.37 Whereas in the 2013 National Census of Population and Dwellings, the percentage of people identifying as belonging to a Christian denomination had dropped to some 48.9 percent of the New Zealand population.38 With the decline in Christian identification, there has been a significant rise in identifications with other major religious groupings (Buddhism, Islam, Judaism and Sikhism) and, importantly, for our chapter discussion of the context, a dramatic rise in the percentage of the total population identifying as belonging to the ‘no-religion’ category.39 As a categorisation of ‘belief’ or the ‘lack of belief’, the no-religion census category is fairly difficult to disentangle. It certainly contains within it firm atheist and agnostic views, but it likely also includes a variety of apathetic, spiritual and/or deist viewpoints or beliefs as well.40 As a consequence, care needs to be exercised when making claims regarding how atheist the New Zealand population might actually be. The New Zealand atheist bus campaign can be set in the context which ­occurred between the 2006 National Census and the 2013 National Census measures of ‘no-religion’.41 This was a period characterised by public reactions 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

35

“National Population Estimates,” June 2014, http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/ population/estimates_and_projections/NationalPopulationEstimates_HOTPAt30Jun14 .aspx (accessed September 3,2014). 36 William J. Hoverd, 2008, “No Longer a Christian Country, Religious Demographic Change in New Zealand 1966–2006,” New Zealand Sociology, Volume 23 No 1: 41–55. 37 Ibid. 38 “2013 Census Quick Stats About Culture and Identity: Religious Affiliation,” http://www .stats.govt.nz/Census/2013-census/profile-and-summary-reports/quickstats-culture -identity/religion.aspx (accessed September 3, 2014). 39 William J. Hoverd, 2008, “No Longer a Christian Country, Religious Demographic Change in New Zealand 1966–2006,” New Zealand Sociology, Volume 23 No 1: 41–55. 40 William James Hoverd, and Chris G. Sibley, 2010. “Religious and denominational diversity in New Zealand 2009.” New Zealand Sociology Journal 25(2):59–87. 41 The term “no-religion” is directly replicated from the New Zealand Census category of the same name.

NEW ZEALAND: FROM BUS TO BILLBOARD

257

against localised outbursts of conservative Christian Fundamentalist politics, a departing openly atheist Prime Minister, and a marked increase in the variety and publicity surrounding atheist and humanist publications for general audiences, as well as visits to the country from atheist and humanist authors (such as Richard Dawkins, who visited in 2010).42 During this period, the percentage of the national population who affiliated as having ‘no-religion’ grew considerably, from 1,297,104 people (32.9 percent of the total population) in the 2006 National Census to 1,635,345 people (41.9 percent of the total population) in the 2013 New Zealand Census.43 Recent research has suggested that as this category continues to grow it is increasingly less easy to differentiate any peculiar characteristics of the no-religion population group from the general population.44 So what does this increase in no-religion in the national population tell us about the lasting impact of the New Zealand atheist bus campaign? While it is unwise to draw a direct relationship between the campaign and rising rates of no-religion in New Zealand, it can be suggested that the atheist bus campaign was part of a growing national sentiment and trend towards no-religion which occurred between the period 2006–2013, and this trend is likely still occurring when one tracks the overall national increase in no-religion affiliations over time.45 Moreover, some 8000 New Zealanders felt compelled to express their views on the atheist bus campaign through the online poll in February 2010 and that some 622 New Zealanders felt that the campaign deserved financial support. The “Nogod” website is claimed to have received some 39,000 visits before it was closed.46 The New Zealand atheist bus campaign Facebook page received 3,219 ‘likes’ from people across the networking website.47 All these statistics, however potentially flawed, coalesce to indicate that a significant minority of the population was actively supporting the campaign. The support 42 43 44 45 46 47

42

43

44 45 46 47

Vaccarino, Franco, Heather Kavan, and Phil Gendall, 2011, “Spirituality and religion in the lives of New Zealanders.” International Journal of Religion and Spirituality in Society, 1(2):85–96. “2013 Census Quick Stats About Culture and Identity: Religious Affiliation,” http://www .stats.govt.nz/Census/2013-census/profile-and-summary-reports/quickstats-culture -identity/religion.aspx. Nigel Smith, 2013, “No Longer More Educated: Changes amongst those of No-Religion in New Zealand,” New Zealand Sociology Journal, 28(2):64–89. William J. Hoverd, 2008, “No Longer a Christian Country, Religious Demographic Change in New Zealand 1966–2006.” New Zealand Sociology, Volume 23 No 1: 41–55. The New Zealand Atheist Bus Campaign, http://www.nogod.org.nz/ No longer accessible. New Zealand Atheist Bus Campaign, https://www.facebook.com/nzatheistbus (accessed September 9, 2014).

258

HOVERD AND STREHLE

that the campaign generated through social media also indicates that there is certainly a group of unaffiliated individuals for whom their message or goal was considered worthy to support or comment upon. Thus, in the case of these groups and individuals, it appears that the campaign’s message had some impact, however fleeting, which has likely gone on to be one factor contributing to the growing amount of New Zealanders who declare themselves as having ‘no religion’. These macro trends, while interesting and important to note, still leave us with little to grasp in terms of the localised impacts of the New Zealand atheist campaign, so now in this final short discussion we turn to documenting some of the localised responses to the campaign. It is not our intention here to comment in any length upon these reactions in any depth; rather it is our intention to allow these responses to speak for themselves, before concluding the chapter. In our interviews, the campaign organisers told us that over the course of the campaign, they had hundreds of individual stories shared with them regarding the negative effect of religion upon individual New Zealanders. People talking around the campaign’s message, told stories about how they had been labelled “sinners” and many told stories recounting family pressures of conformity.48 Simon Fisher said: we received messages of gratitude and support, mostly from younger people who had been afraid to question the beliefs they had been brought up with. The billboards brought some New Zealanders a sense of relief or, perhaps, a new clarity of mind. We know there is often family or social pressure to conform to a belief system, but this is hard to reconcile with modern science. We want people to know that they won’t suffer in eternity for being thoughtful and rational.49 Furthermore, Tim Wright gave us one particular poignant example of this feedback which came from a young unnamed New Zealand teenager: I saw the story on Close Up yesterday regarding your campaign, and it got me thinking. I’m not of any religion, and I’ve always cowered when the idea of it is mentioned, as I’m not a supporter of the “God” idea, and that state of mind is generally frowned upon (especially coming from a 15 year old boy) I try not to display my thoughts all that much out of fear of social 48 49

48 49

Author Interview with Simon Fisher February, 2014. Author Interview with Simon Fisher February, 2014.

NEW ZEALAND: FROM BUS TO BILLBOARD

259

rejection. The idea that atheism being accepted seems awesome to me, as it’s no worse than insisting that something that doesn’t exist, does. In short, I’d like to thank Simon Fisher for the “enlightenment,” I guess. It got me thinking that I might not be as crazy as I first believed.50 For some, it appears that the atheist campaign offered an opportunity to either discuss, or at least individually consider, the social and personal ramifications of the atheist and humanist position. What was evident in these individualised and localised responses and narratives was that the campaign allowed certain individuals to consider and express their reservations about religious belief(s) and also that it appeared that, in certain cases, the campaign had highlighted that there is internal conflict that occurs in New Zealand families and communities between religious and atheist or humanist views, and that there currently exists no easy method or framework to address this conflict. This concern about how to address difference between nonreligious and religious views in New Zealand remains an important question to consider for the future. In summary, what was particularly unique about the New Zealand atheist bus campaign was that it shifted from being a bus campaign to being a billboard campaign. In undergoing this shift, the New Zealand atheist campaign was able to repeatedly, over six to eight months, gain additional public and media profile, in such a way that would not have been possible if they had simply advertised the original slogan upon the nz Bus company’s buses without any hitch, or if they had simply funded the twelve billboards that were eventually erected. Indeed, the authors suspect that the media surrounding the event did more to generate a platform to disseminate and communicate the atheist and humanist slogan of the campaign than the actual resultant physical billboard campaign. The breakdown of communication with nz Bus allowed the organisers to access repeated media appearances and continue to return to the support base for additional ideas and financial support. It significantly prolonged media exposure of the campaign, and allowed for the evolution of ‘New Zealand specific’ atheist slogans to be eventually published alongside the original slogan. We argue that the New Zealand atheist bus campaign offers a poignant example of how a small informal but motivated group of unaffiliated actors can identify with a global movement and employ a variety of media sources, to create significant gains for their atheist position across their nation. In doing so, an informal group, unbound by formal objectives or a set of predefined goals can then extrapolate the general principles of a movement into their own national context. 50

50

Author Interview with Tim Wright February, 2014.

260

HOVERD AND STREHLE

References Hoverd, William J. 2008. “No Longer a Christian Country, Religious Demographic Change in New Zealand 1966–2006.” New Zealand Sociology. 23.1: 41–55. Hoverd, William J. and Chris G. Sibley. 2010. “Religious and denominational diversity in New Zealand 2009.” New Zealand Sociology Journal. 25.2: 59–87. Mawson, Mike. 2006. “Enough is Enough! Civil Unions, Religious Prejudice and the Limits of Secular Tolerance.” Australian Religious Studies Review. 9.1: 1–26. Smith, Nigel. 2013. “No Longer More Educated: Changes amongst those of No-Religion in New Zealand.” New Zealand Sociology Journal. 28.2: 64–89. Vaccarino, Franco, Heather Kavan, and Phil Gendall. 2011. “Spirituality and religion in the lives of New Zealanders.” International Journal of Religion and Spirituality in Society. 1.2:85–96.

Websites “Atheist Bus Campaign,” One Network News. December 16, 2009. https://www.youtube .com/watch?v=dtyJ8AMBBzo (accessed September 9, 2014). “Atheists Claim Bias Over Rejection of No God Ads.” Kelly Burns. February 24, 2012. http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/national/3366649/Atheists-claim -bias-over-rejection-of-No-God-ads (accessed September 9, 2014). “Atheists Plan Anti God Slogans on Buses” Radio New Zealand, Morning Report, 11.12.2009, http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/mnr/2009/12/11/atheists_plan _anti-god_slogans_on_buses Census Quick Stats About Culture and Identity: Religious Affiliation. http://www.stats .govt.nz/Census/2013-census/profile-and-summary-reports/quickstats-culture -identity/religion.aspx (accessed September 3, 2014). National Population Estimates June 2014. http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/ population/estimates_and_projections/NationalPopulationEstimates_HOT PAt30Jun14.aspx. (accessed September 3, 2014). New Zealand Atheist Bus Campaign https://www.facebook.com/nzatheistbus. (accessed September 9, 2014). New Zealand Atheist Bus Campaign https://www.givealittle.co.nz/cause/nzabc. (accessed September 9, 2014). “New Zealand Atheist Bus Campaign meets its Fund Raising Target in Under a Week.” Ken Perrot. December 16, 2009. http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/ nz-atheist-bus-campaign-reaches-fund-raising-target-in-under-a-week/ (accessed September 2014).

NEW ZEALAND: FROM BUS TO BILLBOARD

261

“NZ Atheists Swap Buses for Billboards” http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/485434 -nz-atheists-swap-buses-for-billboards (accessed September 9, 2014). The New Zealand Atheist Bus Campaign http://www.nogod.org.nz/ No longer accessible. “The Wheels on the Atheist Bus Go Round and Round.” December 10, 2009. Ben ­Fahey. http://www.stoppress.co.nz/blog/2009/12/the-wheels-on-the-atheist-bus-go -round-and-round/ (accessed September 14, 2014).

Primary Sources

Author Interview with Helen Breeze February, 2014. Author Interview with Simon Fisher February, 2014. Author Interview with Tim Wright February, 2014. New Zealand Atheist Bus Campaign, Press Release 10 December 2009. New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. New Zealand Human Rights Act 1993.

chapter 12

Russia: Atheism, ‘Blasphemy’, State and Orthodox Christianity Teuvo Laitila I was asked to write about the atheist bus campaign in Russia. This endeavour failed, because the campaign did not materialize there. Instead, in what follows I sketch the context that provides one possible explanation of why it did not occur. The issues I tackle can be divided into two larger parts. First, I outline the fate of state-sponsored atheism in the Soviet years, the edging out of atheism from the public sphere in the 1990s, and the invisibility of atheism in Russia today. Second, I present the lack of tolerance of public critique of religion, particularly from Orthodox Christianity, by concentrating on the role of Orthodoxy in the making of the new Russian identity and the mutual aid of the Russian Orthodox Church (roc)1 and the Russian government in their struggle against all expressions of opposition, including atheists and atheism, to legitimate their power and identity. 12.1

Atheism and Atheists in the Soviet Union

In the Soviet context atheism meant Marxist and natural, science-based, argumentation to prove that God or gods did not exist, and that human thinking developed from magical and religious beliefs to scientific knowledge. In addition, understood as lived practice, atheism meant implacable fighting against religious institutions (such as the Church) and rituals (e.g. liturgies, praying, revering icons).2 During the first Soviet decade, fighting against religious practices was most important. The party officials tried to prove, for example, that icons and relicts 1 To speak generally about the roc is somewhat misleading as there are several fractions within the Church. My parlance more or less equates the Church with the patriarch-dominated traditional view that emphasizes close cooperation between church and state. See Irina Papkova, The Orthodox Church and Russian Politics, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 18–20. 2 See in general James Thrower, Marxist-Leninist ‘Scientific Atheism’ and the Study of Religion and Atheism in the ussr, (Berlin: Mouton, 1983).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004328532_013

RUSSIA: ATHEISM, ‘BLASPHEMY’, STATE AND ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY

263

of various persons canonized as holy by the roc were in fact pieces of painted wood and decomposed bodies.3 During the second decade, from about 1929 to the German attack on the Soviet Union in 1941, Soviet leadership concentrated on wiping out religious institutions, such as the church administration, the clergy, and monasteries. In the early Soviet days, propagation of atheism was carried out by several organizations ranging from ordinary and secret police to the Communist Youth Organization, Komsomol, and the League of Militant Atheists. After a reduction of these activities starting during the war and continuing a few years after it, more emphasis was laid on educating people in ‘scientific atheism’. A strictly controlled facade of religious institutions was allowed, but all deviations from the party line were strongly condemned, and at times heavily attacked.4 The peak of education in scientific atheism – which in fact was not scientific in any western sense but a euphemism to party ideology – was the ­Khrushchev period from the late 1950s until the period’s namesake’s retirement in 1964. At that time classes on scientific atheism were introduced at all levels of the school system, and numerous textbooks were printed and disseminated throughout the country especially by the Society for Propagating Scientific Knowledge, Znanie,5 founded in 1947 to revive the League of Militant Atheists that was closed down six years earlier. The Znanie education programme also included publication of atheistic novels and journals, production of appropriate films, the opening of atheistic museums, as well as lectures on the benefits of science compared to religion, and introducing ‘socialist rites’, or transition rituals intended to replace, for example, religious marriages and funerals. These features of scientific atheism were originally suggested by Leon Trotsky, but become an essential part of atheistic education only after Khrushchev.6 The last Soviet leader, Michael Gorbachev revised the Soviet ideological ­policy from the active propagandizing of atheism to the equally active persuasion of comrades to adopt certain ethical attitudes (such as honesty, hard work, and compassion), which according to Gorbachev, were common to r­ eligions and communism. As Zoe Knox notices, the “relaxation of Soviet ­religious 3 Robert H. Greene, Bodies Like Bright Stars; Saints and Relicts in Orthodox Russia, (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2010). 4 Jennifer Wynot, Keeping the Faith: Russian Orthodox Monasticism in the Soviet Union, 1917–1939, (College Station, Tex: A&M University Press, 2004). 5 Russian romanization is according to British Standard, with few established exceptions (e.g. Yeltsin instead of El’tsin). 6 James Thrower, Marxism-Leninism as the Civil Religion of Soviet Society: God’s Commissar, (Lewiston, ny: E. Mellen Press, 1992).

264

LAITILA

­ olicy was to a large degree motivated by Gorbachev’s desire to strengthen his p political position” by seeking the support of the estimated 50 million Russian Orthodox.7 In effect, he opened the gates for a large-scale revival of religious nationalism. If official ideology until Gorbachev was atheism, what did the designation ‘atheist’ mean, and who were they? To my knowledge, these questions have seldom been studied.8 However, one may safely say that there were roughly speaking two kinds of atheists, namely, exponents of official ideology and, to a considerably lesser number, genuine thinkers who actually denied any supernaturalism. The former presumably made up ten to twenty percent of the total Soviet population and were predictably most numerous among party members and in various party-related offices. The percentage of the latter evidently was around five, which supposedly is the case in Russia even today.9 The rest of the population were in most cases indifferent, or secularized (estranged from religious institutions), or, to a lesser extent, actively religious; and that seems to be the case today, despite claims to the contrary: in 2006 a fourth of Russian citizens did not belong to any religious affiliation, and even fewer actively practised religion.10 One may thus conclude that the main effect of Soviet ‘atheism’ was not the internalization of ‘godless’ Weltanschauung or the growing up of genuine atheists, but a sort of secularization. On the one hand, due to atheistic campaigns, people, (and here I mean ethnic Russians), lost religious institutions and knowledge of religious dogmas. On the other hand, privately many comrades 7 8 9

10

Zoe Knox, Russian Society and the Orthodox Church: Religion in Russia after Communism, (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2005), 60. Cf. for example, Paul Froese, The Plot to Kill God: Findings from the Soviet Experiment in Secularization, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008), 98. Various sources disagree on the number of atheists, but five percent seems a realistic estimation (cf. Rachel L. Schroeder and Vyavheslav Karpov, “the Crimes and Punishments of the ‘Enemies of the Church’ and the Nature of Russia’s Desecularising Regime,” in Religion, State and Society 41 (2013), 301), although also a considerably higher percentage of thirteen (from the year 2012) has been suggested (Alexey Eremenko, “Live without God: Non-believers in Post-Soviet Russia,” 2012, http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20120626/174256633. html, accessed May 5, 2014). See Froese, The Plot, 124–127; V.D. Kobetskii, “Study of the Processes of Overcoming ­Religiosity and of the Dissemination of Atheism,” Soviet Sociology 18 (1980): 79–103, 19 (1980), 50–62, 67–102; Marat Shterin, “Secularization or De-secularization? The Challenges of and from the Post-Soviet Experience,” in The Social Significance of Religion in the Enlarged Europe: Secularization, Individualization and Pluralization, ed. Detlef Pollack et al. (Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, 2012), 143–149.

RUSSIA: ATHEISM, ‘BLASPHEMY’, STATE AND ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY

265

continued to believe in the existence of some kind of supernatural phenomena which one can turn to in times of troubles, such as ‘holy’ persons or things (e.g. icons) that can bring about ‘miraculous’ healings. Perhaps paradoxically, this kind of ‘faith’ was upheld by official assertions claiming that the communist society fulfils everybody’s needs and wishes. This emotional commitment to irrational hope as a means to manage one’s life survived all phases of Soviet socialism, and was resurrected in post-Soviet Russian nationalism.11 In summary, during the Soviet period, (1) religious institutions were pushed to the margins of the society; (2) religious practices declined, as well as; (3) the number of religious communities, and; (4) religious ideology and ethics was severed from other spheres of society.12 In post-Soviet Russia, governmental and other public backing of, and support to, religion, particularly the roc, turned the tide leading to processes opposite particularly to these three points. 12.2

Edging Out Atheism: Asserting Russia as an Orthodox Country

Changes started to take shape on the eve of the Soviet collapse, when, soon after his election to office in June 1990, Patriarch Aleksiǐ of Moscow met the then Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, Ivan Silaev, making a deal of mutual support on a wide variety of social issues. Two years later president of Russia, Boris Yeltsin, officially attended liturgy and started to appear in public (such as media events) accompanied with Aleksiǐ. During Vladimir Putin’s presidencies (2000–2008, 2012–) Orthodox dignitaries have been present on all major state occasions, and the president has attended major Orthodox feast liturgies. ­Officially, according to the 1993 Constitution, church and state as well as church and school are separated. The presidential policy, adopted by some lesser political figures, has effectively barred atheism from acceptance, not merely as the state ideology but also as something the state could sympathize with or tolerate. Politicians who disapprove of this kind of state/church alliance have usually been ignored.13 The roc went even further. It did not merely condemn (Soviet time) atheism, but also claimed that the administrative territory of the Russian Church, which included regions of the former Soviet Union outside Russia 11 Cf. Froese, The Plot, 165–199; Shterin, “Secularization or De-secularization?” 147–148. 12 Froese, The Plot, 23, following David Martin. 13 Froese, The Plot, 155–156; Knox, Russian Society and the Orthodox Church, 129–130; Shterin, “Secularization or De-secularization?” 150.

266

LAITILA

(for e­ xample, in the Ukraine, Estonia, and Latvia), should not be opened to foreign ­missionaries or other western influences. This was stressed particularly by Metropolitan Kirill, head of the Department for External Relations of the Church, and since 2009 the patriarch.14 The main reason for his statements was religious legislation. The 1929 Soviet law on religious freedom had liberated the citizens from confessing any religion and granted them the right to atheistic propaganda.15 This was abolished in 1990, when the new law had given all religions equal freedom to practise and missionize. The roc, and to lesser amount some other ‘traditional’ religions in Russia, such as Islam, had heavily critiqued this. After a substantial lobbying by the roc,16 the government promulgated, in 1997, a new law, which in its preamble recognized “the special contribution of Orthodoxy to the history of Russia and to the establishment and development of Russia’s spirituality and culture” as well as assured respect toward “Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and other religions constituting an integral part of the historical heritage of the peoples of Russia.” Other faiths were designated as religious associations whose working required special permission from the state authorities.17 ‘Traditional’ religions, particularly Russian Orthodoxy, were also given governmental support, including money, which made the roc a “pseudo-state church” as Zoe Knox put it.18 One of the first, and very powerful, symbols of the roc’s reappearance and new authority was the reconstruction of the Moscow Cathedral of Christ the Saviour. It was originally built in 1883 to commemorate the Russian victory over Napoleon (and hence, the west) in 1812, and demolished by Stalin in 1931. He wanted to build on its site a huge monument of the Soviet might, but for various reasons that did not materialize. Instead, an open-air swimming pool was constructed and opened to the public in 1960. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the pool was closed. In 1994, Moscow Mayor Iuriǐ Luzhkov announced that the cathedral would be rebuilt. The reconstruction, sponsored from the federal and Luzhkov’s own budget, was completed within three years 14 Froese, The Plot, 157; Shterin, “Secularization or De-secularization?” 159. 15 The first such law, issued in 1918, had granted freedom of conscience and right to make atheist and religious propaganda. See the online translation of the law text in http://host .uniroma3.it/progetti/cedir/cedir/Lex-doc/Ru_l_1990.pdf (accessed April 27, 2014). 16 Knox, Russian Society and the Orthodox Church, 115–119, 167–169. 17 See the English translation of the law in http://host.uniroma3.it/progetti/cedir/cedir/ Lex-doc/Ru_l_1997.pdf (accessed April 27, 2014). This is the only federation-wide foundational law explicitly mentioning the Orthodox Church. Papkova, The Orthodox Church, 168–169. 18 Knox, Russian Society and the Orthodox Church, 131, 191.

RUSSIA: ATHEISM, ‘BLASPHEMY’, STATE AND ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY

267

and the church, the largest Orthodox sanctuary in the world, was reopened in S­ eptember 1997. In the church’s official opening liturgy in October 2000 Mayor Luzhkov explained that he expected that the rebuilding “will help to ­regenerate Orthodoxy and spirituality in Russia.”19 Although neither Luzhkov nor the secular establishment in general seems to have made much to realize that wish, being, as Denysenko puts it, “the primatial seat of the patriarch,”20 the cathedral has indeed become a sort of Orthodox Kremlin, as indicated by the Pussy Riot affair discussed below. 12.3

(In)visibility of Atheism in Russia in the Twenty-First Century

Organized atheism in present Russia is rare. There seems to be about a dozen atheist groups, none of which are very large. The most important of them are the Moscow-based libertine fund Zdravomyslie (Common Sense), founded in September 2010 to carry out the atheist bus campaign,21 and Liberty of Conscience Institute or iss (Institut svobody sovesti), previously known as Russian Atheist Union or ras (Rossiǐskiǐ ateisticheskiǐ soyuz).22 The former criticizes all aspects of religion using scientific viewpoints and promotes secularization in general.23 The latter, which is more concentrated on old-style atheism, is a forum established in 1999 and turned into the iss three years later to continue the battle against ‘clericalism’ initiated by the Soviet scientific atheism.24 When the society appeared on the scene spokesman of the Department for External Relations of the Church, Fr. Vsevolod Chaplin, claimed it being a part of a broader trend of a “new wave of godlessness among a certain group of Russian intellectuals,” advanced to bolster their crumbling power.25 Evidently due to its constant critique of the Church, the roc’s view on Zdravomyslie is that

19 Knox, Russian Society and the Orthodox Church, 119–120; Papkova, The Orthodox Church, 22. 20 Nicholas Denysenko, “An Appeal to Mary: An Analysis of Pussy Riot’s Punk Performance in Moscow,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 81 (2013), 1062. 21 http://zdravomyslie.info/cat/15-stranitsy/153-mission (accessed April 14, 2016). 22 http://www.atheism.ru/ (accessed April 28, 2014); Eremenko, “Live without God.” 23 See http://gifakt.ru/karta-sajta/ (accessed May 4, 2014). 24 Andrei Zolotov, “Russian Intellectuals Try to Revive Atheism,” http://www.christianity today.com/ct/2001/januaryweb-only/34.0b.html (accessed April 28, 2014). 25 Zolotov, “Russian Intellectuals.”

268

LAITILA

the fund is a trouble-maker26 that continues the Soviet (communist) ideological oppression27 of people. There is not much to say about Russian atheistic activities during the turn of the second and third millennium. Evidently, critique of gods and religions continued along the lines of Soviet-style atheism. Soon, however, the ras/iss noticed that, in addition to what the roc termed ‘militant secularism’28 a new, and rejuvenated, wave of atheism had started to gain traction in ­Western ­Europe and North America. The organization slowly adopted this ‘New ­Atheism’, as indicated by Russian translations of a few pieces by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins made available by the ras/iss web pages. Those by Harris are “What Is Atheism”29 and “Ten Myths and Ten Truths about Atheism.”30 Russian translations of Dawkins are the book The God Delusion31 and, to translate from the Russian title, “Contemporary Darwinists against Religion.”32 No specific data on translation process, translator(s), or the time of publishing are included. Evidently Dawkins has been translated around 2008 and Harris a bit later. In addition, Dawkins’ best-known scientific work, The Selfish Gene, has appeared in Russian twice, in 1993 and 2013. There is no particular data available of the iss activities after the publication of Dawkins’ and Harris’ works, but they evidently were noticed by the roc and, alongside masons, Catholics, Jews and several others,33 considered as intruders spreading a ‘foreign’, ‘non-traditional’ worldview. Russian nationalists, including the roc, have constantly argued 26

For example, in March 2013 Zdravomyslie organized in St. Petersburg a round table discussion on the theme “The Clericalization of Russia – Heading towards New Barbarism,” and a year later it issued in the YouTube film “Orthodoxy on Trial” (in Russian). http:// ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zdravomyslie (obshchestvennyǐ fond); http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=1a9lVBBZSjo, both accessed May 9, 2014. 27 Natalia Antonova, “Battle of Faith Could Head to the Courts,” Moscow News, February 22, 2011, in http://themoscownews.com/society/20110222/188439821.html (accessed May 4, 2014). 28 Hilarion (Alfaev, Bishop), Orthodox Witness Today, (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 2006), 216. 29 http://www.atheism.ru/library/sam_3.phtml (accessed April 28, 2014). The situation seems to be the same two years later. 30 http://www.atheism.ru/library/sam_1.phtml (accessed April 28, 2014). 31 http://www.atheism.ru/library/Dowkins_3.phtml (accessed April 28, 2014). 32 “Sovremennye darvinisty protiv religiǐ,” http://www.atheism.ru/old/DovAth1.html (accessed April 28, 2014). 33 See Knox, Russian Society and the Orthodox Church, 150–155. Here the Church reflected an attitude typical of a vast majority of Russians (see Shterin, “Secularization or De-­secularization?” 153–155).

RUSSIA: ATHEISM, ‘BLASPHEMY’, STATE AND ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY

269

that socialism and atheism were not genuine Russian ideas but were forced upon the country from abroad. Along with New Atheism a new conservative view also appeared. In late 2006, “a St. Petersburg student named Maria Schneider went [together with her father] to court to argue that the Ministry of Education should allow alternatives to evolution to be taught in high schools.”34 Evidently influenced by similar arguments in the United States, she was the first to publicly lay such a claim in post-Soviet Russia. The court rejected the case in February 2007, and soon afterwards the Schneiders left Russia.35 The roc was not eager to follow the lead, but later in 2007 Patriarch Aleksiǐ told an audience in the Kremlin that evolutionists had the right to their beliefs but should not “force their opinions on others.”36 The statement remained isolated until in June 2010 Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfaev), the current chairman of the Department for External Relations of the Church, gave the Moscow city authorities a lecture calling for an end to the ‘monopoly of Darwinism’ in Russian schools and demanding that religious explanation of creation should be taught alongside the theory of evolution.37 Both bishops in effect repeated what “The Basis of Social Concept,” accepted by the Bishops’ Council in August 2000, had stated on ‘proper’ education in school: the Church “considers it inadmissible to impose on students anti-religious and anti-Christian ideas and to assert the monopoly of the materialistic worldview.”38 In public, however, disputes on the origins of the world and other such issues have usually been neglected. Both secular authorities and the roc have paid much more attention, for example, to critiques of Orthodox symbols and practices. That is understandable. The negligible amount of philosophical or scientific criticism of god(s) existing in today’s Russia affects but a few people and poses no danger worth mentioning to those in power, whereas attacks to symbols and rituals undermine ‘national’ values that the authorities use to legitimize their power. I turn to this issue in the next section.

34 35 36 37 38

John Anderson, “Rocks, Art, and Sex: The ‘Culture Wars’ Come to Russia?” Journal of Church and State 55 (2012), 312. Anderson, “Rocks, Art, and Sex,” 312–315, 333. Anderson, “Rocks, Art, and Sex,” 317. Anderson, “Rocks, Art, and Sex,” 317–318; Conor Humphries, “Russia [:] Church Wants End to Darwin School ‘Monopoly’,” 2010. The Basis of the Social Concept, Section  14.3, https://mospat.ru/en/documents/social-­ concepts/ (accessed May 6, 2014).

270 12.4

LAITILA

Non-Tolerance of Public Critique of Religion

After the Soviet collapse, the roc has heavily criticized multiculturalism and pluralistic societies. The previously mentioned “The Basis of Social Concept” argues that freedom of conscience is a late legal concept, the adoption of which “points to the fact that society has lost religious goals and values and become massively apostate and actually indifferent to the task of the Church and to the overcoming of sin.”39 However, the document also states that while respecting the worldview of nonreligious people and their right to influence social processes, the Church cannot favour a world order that puts in the centre of everything the human personality darkened by sin. This is why, invariably open to co-operation with people of nonreligious convictions, the Church seeks to assert Christian values in the process of decision-making on the most important public issues both on national and international levels.40 Moreover, The Basis warns of conflicts between the church and the “secular mass media” arising from cases when “the name of God is blasphemed, other blasphemies are pronounced, the information about church life is systematically distorted consciously and the Church and her servants are deliberately slandered.” In such cases, the supreme church authorities, after issuing an appropriate warning and at least one attempt to enter into negotiations, may take the following steps: to rupture relations with the mass medium or journalist concerned; to call upon the faithful to boycott the given mass medium; to apply to the governmental bodies to help settle the conflict; to subject those guilty of sinful actions to canonical prohibitions if they are Orthodox Christians.41 Relative to art, the document states that if “a creative work contributes to the moral and spiritual transformation of the personality, the Church gives her blessing upon it. But if culture puts itself in opposition to God, becoming anti-religious and anti-humane and turning into anti-culture, the Church opposes it.”42 A litmus test of the above-mentioned views was the exhibition ­“Ostorozhno, religiya!” (Caution, Religion!) which the private Moscow-based Andrei Sakharov Museum and Social Centre opened on January 14, 2003. It consisted of works (paintings, sculptures, collages) by thirty-nine artists, most of them Russian. The works included “a church made out of vodka bottles, a naked woman crucified with an icon on her stomach, and a picture of Christ against

39 40 41 42

The Basis, Section III.6. The Basis, Section XVI.4. The Basis, Section XV.3. The Basis, Section XIV.2.

RUSSIA: ATHEISM, ‘BLASPHEMY’, STATE AND ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY

271

a ­Coca-Cola advert saying, ‘This is my blood’.”43 The exhibition also presented some icons “customized,” such as figures of hammer and sickle, or Nazi ­symbols.44 ­According to the director of the museum, Yuriǐ Samodurov, the aim was to draw attention “to the hypocritical role of religion in the contemporary world.” He also said that the exhibition was “simply an occasion for talking about various aspects of religion.”45 Representatives of the fundamentalist lay-centred Orthodox Social Committee for the Moral Renaissance of the Fatherland46 (hereafter, Committee) strongly disagreed, claiming that the exhibition incited religious strife, which according to the Russian Criminal Code’s article 282 was forbidden. They evidently also believed that the exhibition, which was not the first of its kind,47 was but the latest sign of the actual presence of the Antichrist. On January 18, or the eve of the Epiphany according to the Julian calendar used by the roc, six males, members of, or parishioners close to, the Committee, trespassed on the museum, spray-painted several works and wrote slogans such as “sacrilege” on the walls.48 This was not the first time the Committee members attacked what they termed blasphemy; previously they had destroyed, among other things, billboards advertising contraceptives.49 After the attack the exhibition was closed. Evidently very few people saw it. The six offenders were soon arrested. Fr. Aleksandr Shargunov, head of both the Committee and the local St. Nicholas of Pyzhi parish,50 defended the men by claiming that: “For a believer, this sacrilege [i.e., exhibition] is equivalent to the destruction of a church, which is what happened in the near past in ­Russia.” The roc patriarch did not comment, but in a press conference on January 20, Metropolitan Kirill, who had not seen the exhibition, called it a 43

44 45

46 47 48

49 50

Anderson, “Rocks, Art, and Sex,” 320. See also Dmitry Ageev, “‘Beware of Religion!’: A ­Rebirth of Militant Atheism in Moscow” [2003]; Schroeder & Karpov, “The Crimes and Punishments,” 287–289. Greg Simons, The Role of the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia since 1990: Changing ­Dynamics of Politics and Religion (Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2009), 107. Ageev, “Beware of Religion!”; [Anonymous], “Judge Faults Indictment in Anti-religious Art Case,” Mir religiǐ, June 17, 2004, in http://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/0406a. html (accessed May 2, 2014). Obshchestvennyǐ komitet za nravstvennoe vozroshdenie otechestva, founded in 1994. See Anderson, “Rocks, Art, and Sex,” 319–320. This was a tactic already used in the spring of 1999, when nine young men apparently associated with the Committee had destroyed with black spray paint several exhibition works by atheist artist Avdei Ter-Organian. Papkova, The Orthodox Church, 147. Anonymous, “Judge Faults Indictment;” Papkova, The Orthodox Church, 138–140. See Papkova, The Orthodox Church, 136–138.

272

LAITILA

“direct provocation that creates tension in our society.” Yuriǐ Samodurov, on the contrary, charged the critics of backwardness and “clerical bolshevism.”51 During the next days the roc leadership distanced itself from the events and the Pyzhi parish took the initiative. One of its members, O. Lachagina (her first name is not mentioned in my sources), filed a petition with the Moscow Tagan district prosecutor’s office demanding that “the organizers of the ­exhibition be charged with a criminal offence.” Lachagina grounded this on the argument that “Orthodoxy is an inseparable part of Russian national consciousness and culture” and that the exhibition of “blasphemous works of art [was] offensive to national dignity.”52 Fr. Shargunov, on his part, appealed to two Duma deputies, Aleksandr Chuev and Tatyana Astrakhankina, both representatives of the now ‘patriotic’ Communist Party, who persuaded the general procuracy to charge the Museum leadership and the artists with inciting religious hatred. Samodurov, the museum’s curator Ludmila Vasilovskaya, and one of the artists, Anna Mikhal’chuk,53 a well-known critic of the Putin administration, were charged. Meanwhile, also in February 2003, the roc argued that: “The Russian Church advocates the creation of a society in which the convictions of both believers and nonbelievers would be respected. It maintains, however, that in Russian society there should be no place for conscious, planned blasphemy that offends the feelings of believers.”54 To paraphrase the Soviet parlance, the roc accused the exhibitioners of “militant atheism.”55 On August 11, 2003 the Moscow Zamoskvorechie district court issued an order that halted the processing of charges against the six attackers. Although they had not denied their actions, the court grounded the stoppage to the (alleged) absence of data which would “point to evidences of a crime.” “Thus,” 51 52

53

54 55

Ageev, “Beware of Religion!”; Schroeder & Karpov, “The Crimes and Punishments,” 287–288; Simons, The Role of the Russian Orthodox Church, 108–110. Ageev, “Beware of Religion!” Her claim finds support from a poll carried out by the Moscow Levada Centre in December 2011. In it, 76 percent of Russians identified themselves as Orthodox. Levada Centre 2012, “Rossiyane o religii i tserkvi [The Russians on religion and the Church],” http://www.levada.ru/2012/10/11/rossiyane-o-religii-i-tserkvi/ (accessed April 14, 2016). As artist she used the last name Alchuk (e.g. Papkova, The Orthodox Church, 148). She left for Berlin in 2007 and committed suicide next spring. Hans H. Nibbrig, “Suizid von Putin-Kritikerin bestätigt,” Berliner Morgenpost 26 April 2008, in http://www.morgenpost .de/bezirke/charlottenburg-wilmersdorf/article540076/Suizid-von-Putin-Kritikerin -bestaetigt.html (accessed 26 June 2014). Ageev, “Beware of Religion!” See Papkova, The Orthodox Church, 148–149.

RUSSIA: ATHEISM, ‘BLASPHEMY’, STATE AND ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY

273

as the Moscow Helsinki Group put it, “the court, in effect, expressed its solidarity” with the position of the attackers who “insisted that their actions were justified and legal, since they were stopping a crime that supposedly was being committed by the exhibit’s organizers.”56 Ten months later, in June 2004, the Tagan district prosecutor’s office judged that the exhibition had “insulted and humiliated the religious feelings of believers and non-believers who have an idea about the sanctity of basic ­Christian symbols. It [also had] humiliated the national dignity of a great number of believers.”57 Thus both juridical bodies unequivocally put the freedom of ­Orthodoxy higher than the freedom of democratic critique. The case was closed in March 2005 when Mikhal’chuk was found not guilty and Samodurov and Vasilovskaya58 were fined 100,000 roubles or approximately $3,000 us each for offending people’s religious sentiments. The judgement was based on Article 282 of the Russian Criminal Code, the same on which the attackers were originally charged with hooliganism. The long procedure interested but a handful of secular intellectuals (notably not atheists) and conservative Orthodox.59 Four years later a similar exhibition, “Forbidden Art – 2006” (Zapretnoe isskustvo – 2006), opened on March 7, 2007, and caught similar public attention. It displayed works banned by Russian museums including (again) a Pop Art juxtaposition of an image of Jesus appearing with McDonald’s golden arches as if in an advertisement with the words, “This is my body;” an icon of the Virgin Mary with what looks like caviar where the figures should be; and a painting of Jesus with a Mickey Mouse head.60 As in 2003, the museum explained that the exhibition was intended “to monitor and discuss the character and trends of institutional censorship in the cultural field,” including works critical of religion.61 Predictably, Metropolitan Kirill and Fr. Chaplin again claimed that the exhibition meant to incite religious 56 Moscow Helsinki Group’s statement on August 20, 2004, in http://www2.stetson .edu/~psteeves/relnews/0308i.html (accessed May 4, 2014). 57 Ageev, “Beware of Religion!”; Simons, The Role of the Russian Orthodox Church, 108–110. 58 They both applied to the European Court of Human Right, see http://www.article19.org/ data/files/pdfs/analysis/russia-first-decision-yuriy-samodurov.pdf (accessed May 4, 2014). 59 Anderson, “Rocks, Art, and Sex,” 323; Schroeder & Karpov, “The Crimes and Punishments,” 289. 60 Sophia Kishkovksy, “Organizers of Art Show Convicted in Moscow,” in The New York Times July 12, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/arts/design/13curators.html?_r=0 (accessed May 11, 2014). See also Schroeder & Karpov, “The Crimes and Punishments,” 289–290. 61 Schroeder & Karpov, “The Crimes and Punishments,” 289.

274

LAITILA

hatred. In addition, outside the museum an extreme lay-dominated group called Orthodox banner-bearers62 organised a protest against the ­“blasphemous nature” of the exhibition. Some groups of politically-motivated nationalists lent them support. The museum was accused of anti-Christianity and extremism. As in 2003, atheistic organizations did not express their opinion. Samodurov and the guest curator, Andrei Erofeev, were arrested, charged with inflaming religious strife, found guilty and sentenced, in the summer of 2010, to fines amounting to 200,000 and 150,000 roubles, respectively.63 ­However, the exhibition was not closed prematurely, but in July 2007 as planned. During the exhibition, in May 2007, ten well-known scientists, among them Zhores Alferov (Nobel Prize in Physics in 2000) and Vitaliǐ Ginzberg (who got the same prize three years later) sent President Putin an open letter expressing their concern about the “growing clericalisation of Russian society.”64 I have no knowledge of Putin’s possible reply, but the roc Press Secretary Vladimir Vigilyanskiǐ retorted by accusing the critics of forcing an “ideology of science” on Russia.65 By this he perhaps insinuated the fact that Ginzberg, one of the members of the ras/iss, had been a critic of the above-mentioned Schneider appeal on alternatives to teaching evolution.66 12.5

Fighting Against ‘Sacrileges’: Ad Campaign, ‘Punk Prayer’ and the ‘Blasphemy Law’

In August 2008 the roc’s Bishops’ Council accepted a document entitled “The Bases of the Russian Orthodox Teaching on Dignity, Freedom and Human Rights.” The text targeted secular organizations, mainly human rights ngos, accusing them of ‘usurping’ the definition of human rights and ignoring, or contradicting, Christian, bible-based morality. The term ‘atheism’ was not mentioned, but part of Section III.2, entitled “Human Rights Cannot Be Superior to the Values of the Spiritual World,” outspokenly condemned not only abortion, euthanasia, non-hetero sexuality and other manifestations of liberal secular ethos but also the articulation of atheistic views by stating that, 62 63

Pravoslavnie khorugvenostsy. Kishkovksy, “Organizers of Art Show”; Schroeder & Karpov, “The Crimes and Punishments,” 290–291. 64 The letter can be read (in Russian) in http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/print.php?act =news&id=55749 (accessed July 1, 2014). See also Anderson “Rocks, Art, and Sex,” 316–317. 65 Simons, The Role of the Russian Orthodox Church, 62–63. 66 Anderson, “Rocks, Art, and Sex,” 316; Zolotov, “Russian Intellectuals.”

RUSSIA: ATHEISM, ‘BLASPHEMY’, STATE AND ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY

275

“[n]o reference whatsoever to the freedom of expression and creative work can justify the public defilement of objects, symbols or notions cherished by believers.” Section III.5, “The Realization of Human Rights Should Not Lead to the Degradation of the Environment and Depletion of Natural Resources,” reiterated this: “The exercise of human rights should not be used to justify any encroachment on religious holy symbols, things, cultural values and the identity of a nation.” Sections IV.3 (on freedom of conscience) and IV.5 (on the freedom of creative work) denied freedom of speech and the pursuit of “creative work” (i.e. art) from all kinds of critics of religion.67 I think that Agadjanian was correct in stating that the main purpose of the 2008 document was to protect “the rights of the Church and its members,” not first and foremost to attack atheism.68 However, it nonetheless also made clear that the roc did not tolerate any kind of “blasphemy.” In effect, the text stated that critique, or disrespect, of Orthodoxy excluded a person from being a true Russian entitled to live in Russia. It was in this anti-blasphemy atmosphere that the Zdravomyslie, in the wake of the United Kingdom atheist bus campaign, in September 2010 applied to the Moscow authorities in charge of public advertising for permission to post ads stating “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” The Moscow News claimed that the fund did not want to disseminate atheistic ideas but rather wanted to protest “against the ‘coalescence of the state with religious organisations’ and ‘the imposition of religious norms as mandatory’.”69 I cannot tell if the claim is true, but it suits both Samodurov’s above-mentioned statements and the general policy followed by Russian atheists. No permission was granted, for reasons not mentioned in my sources. In January 2011 the fund decided instead to spread a slogan taken from the ­fourteenth article of the Russian Constitution, which states that: “The Russian Federation is a secular state. No religion may be established as a state or obligatory one.”70 However, the Moscow city authorities again denied clearance. The official reason was the limited options for advertising in Moscow, but rumours 67

“Osnovy ucheniya russkoǐ pravoslavnoǐ tserkvi o dostoinstve, svobode i pravakh che­ loveka,” https://mospat.ru/ru/documents/dignity-freedom-rights/ (accessed May 3, 2014); Alexander Agadjanian, Russian Orthodox Vision of Human Rights: Recent Documents and Their Significance, (Universität Erfurt: Lehrstuhl für Religionswissenschaft, 2008), 5–11. 68 Agadjanian, Russian Orthodox Vision of Human Rights, 15. 69 Vladimir Kozlov, “Atheist Ad Campaign Nixed,” Moscow News October 21, 2010, in http:// themoscownews.com/society/20101021/188145146.html (accessed May 4, 2014). 70 http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zdravomyslie (obshchestvennyǐ fond), (accessed May 9, 2014); cf. Ateisticheskaya reklamnaya kampaniya, http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki (accessed May 3, 2014).

276

LAITILA

spread that officials had found the text “provocational.”71 My guess is that this refers to the eighth article of the Russian federal law on advertising forbidding “unethical” ads but not defining the concept more precisely; any advertisement that one finds insulting to one’s own feelings and takes the trouble to lodge a complaint to the authorities is ‘unethical’.72 Their success may be explained by the fact that, according to polls, some 44 to 50 percent of Russians were of the opinion, that the roc should support (conservative) ethics and morals. Accordingly, by refusing a permit, the administration could be interpreted as having attempted to avoid someone finding a reminder of western-style freedom of conscience (and, hence, pluralism), which they consider to be an insulting sign of apostasy from a true Russian ethos, by keeping them from lodging an appeal.73 Hence the failure of the campaign resulted in the exposure of an authoritarian power structure, which did not allow polyphony. In the end the bus campaign materialized only fictitiously in the web site atheist.org.ru.74 Another campaign (if one may call it so) that materialized (although incompletely), and provoked much public discussion – not precisely on atheism, but on blasphemy – was the recital of the already well-known75 anti-Putin female performance group Pussy Riot. On February 21, 2012, a few months after parliamentary elections, which were considered fraud by large number of citizens, and on the threshold of presidential elections, five of the group members, dressed in ski masks, sleeveless dresses and neon tights, appeared on the solea (extension before the iconostasis) of the Moscow Cathedral of Christ the Saviour. Equipped with one electric guitar they intended to present what they called a “punk prayer” (pank moleben), asking the Mother of God (Virgin Mary76) to chase off Vladimir Putin and criticizing the roc for its 71

Anonymous, “Moscow Rejects Ad Quoting Constitutional Freedom of Religion,” 2010, in http://www.theotherrussia.org/2010/10/19/moscow-rejects-ad-quoting-constitutional -freedom-of-religion/ (accessed April 29, 2014); Kozlov, “Atheist Ad Campaign.” 72 Papkova, The Orthodox Church, 141–142. 73 Cf. Agadjanian, Russian Orthodox Vision of Human Rights, 18. Statistics are taken from the Levada Centre 2011 survey, “The Russians on religion and the Church” (in Russian), Levada Centre 2012. 74 Eremenko, “Live without God.” 75 Their earlier performances, although critical of Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church, had not drawn much public attention. 76 The background for this is the touring in fourteen Russian cities of a belt, allegedly belonging to Virgin Mary and located to the Vatopedi Monastery at Mount Athos, which took place in late 2011. President Putin was the first to paid homage to it when it arrived (in St. Petersburg). Later it was shown, among other places, in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour. The text of the lyrics explicitly refer to the belt: it “cannot replace remonstrance [protestah].”

RUSSIA: ATHEISM, ‘BLASPHEMY’, STATE AND ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY

277

conservative and anti-women attitudes. The cathedral security stopped them after some half a minute and they fled. However, the episode was videoed and, mixed with material from their previous appearances, released on YouTube a few days later.77 In western media Pussy Riot was celebrated as representatives of freedom of expression and their critics were accused of religious obscurantism. Russian reactions varied from accusations of sacrilege (atheism was not mentioned) to belittling the event as a prank to condemning them for inappropriate behaviour to applauding their “valuable critique of the roc’s embrace of the state;” the latter was by an Orthodox priest. Both supporters and opponents of Putin were quite unanimous of the fact that the performers had somehow committed blasphemy and the former demanded a severe punishment for them. The roc Bishops’ Council spoke of a “blasphemy and sacrilege, a conscious and deliberate desecration of a sacred thing and a demonstration of crude hostility to millions of people and their feelings,” but added that the judgement should be passed by a secular court. The Church’s spokesman Chaplin defined blasphemy in this case as an “attempt to make the church adapt to the world of consumerism and secular moral[s].” As to President Putin, he claimed that the performance has endangered the “moral health” of Russian society and therefore deserved a punishment.78 On March 3, 2012, a day before the presidential elections, two of the women were arrested; the third arrest took place two weeks later. Their trial began in

77

78

Denysenko, “An Appeal to Mary,” 1062, 1066, 1069. I have altered his translation. The verse is a direct blow to Patriarch Kirill, who, in a speech hold on February 1, 2012, in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, had said that Orthodox believers do not protest (against the official results of the parliamentary elections); they queue to venerate the belt of Virgin Mary. Quoted in Volha Kananovich, “‘Execute Not Pardon’: The Pussy Riot Case, Political Speech, and Blasphemy in Russian Law,” in Communication Law and Policy 20 (2015), 381. Anya Bernstein, “An Inadvertent Sacrifice: Body Politics and Sovereign Power in the Pussy Riot Affair,” Critical Inquiry 40 (2013), 220–221; Masha Gessen, Words Will Break Cement: The Passion of Pussy Riot, (London: Granta, 2014), 115–134; Schroeder & Karpov, “The Crimes and Punishments,” 292–293. Bernstein, “An Inadvertent Sacrifice,” 223–225, 232; Marina Darmaros, “The Russian ­Orthodox Church Won’t Be Silent,” in Russia Beyond the Headlines, April 23, 2012, http:// rbth.com/articles/2012/04/23/the_russian_orthodox_church_wont_be_silent_15378.html (accessed May 11, 2014); “Dokument: ‘Obrashchaemsya k gosurarstvennoǐ vlasti s bros’boǐ tsroyavet’ v ramkah zakona miloserdie k osuzhdennym’. Zayablenie VTsS RPTs MP,” http:// www.portal-credo.ru/site/print.php?act=news&id=94522August 2012 (accessed May 10, 2014); Kananovich, “‘Execute Not Pardon’,” 344–345; Schroeder & Karpov, “The Crimes and Punishments,” 411. A summary of reactions is also provided by Denysenko, “An Appeal to Mary,” 1063, 1080.

278

LAITILA

late July. As witnesses the prosecutor had the cathedral security persons and some other attendants, many of which were incapable of telling what the accused actually had sung.79 For reasons never publicly explained the trial focused, following the roc’s lead, on their (alleged) sacrilege. On August 17, 2012, the court judged them for “hooliganism [crimes against public order] motivated by religious hatred and enmity with respect to a social group.”80 In their verdict it was stated that: The defendants violated the generally accepted norms and standards lying at the foundation of public order in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. Using foul words in public in immediate proximity to Orthodox icons and shrines, considering the place where these actions were performed, cannot be evaluated other than being violation of public order. What happened was basically humiliation of the Cathedral attendee… [The verdict further explained that] Swear words that were uttered in the Cathedral, were blasphemy against God and were unambiguously perceived as a manifestation of religious hatred and enmity.81 The females’ defence of their action as political critique was dismissed,82 as well as their statement that they did not aim at hurting anybody’s feelings,83 and their apology for unintentionally perhaps having done so. Two of the Pussy Riot group’s members were found guilty of “hooliganism motivated by religious hatred,” although no motive was proved, and sentenced to a two-year term in a labour camp.84 They were released in December 2013, as a part of general amnesty.85 79 Gessen, Words Will Break Cement, 170–184; Schroeder & Karpov, “The Crimes and Punishments,” 292–293. 80 Bernstein, “An Inadvertent Sacrifice,” 225, 230, 232, 234; Gessen, Words Will Break Cement, 159–160. Kananovich, “’Execute Not Pardon’,” 344–345. 81 Quoted in Kananovich, “’Execute Not Pardon’,” 399, 403. His translation. 82 Kananovich, “’Execute Not Pardon’,” 407–409. 83 Their assertion is supported by Denysenko (“An Appeal to Mary,” 1071). 84 Anya Bernstein, “An Inadvertent Sacrifice: Body Politics and Sovereign Power in the Pussy Riot Affair,” Critical Inquiry 40 (2013), 220–221. Schroeder & Karpov, “The Crimes and Punishments,” 292–293. 85 In February 2014, a Pussy Riot performance in Sochi, theatre of 2014 Winter Olympic Games, was prevented by paramilitary Cossack patrols. Gulnar Sharafutdinova, “The Pussy Riot Affair and Putin’s Demarche from Sovereign Democracy to Sovereign ­Morality,” in Nationalities Papers 42 (2014), 619.

RUSSIA: ATHEISM, ‘BLASPHEMY’, STATE AND ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY

279

The reason for keeping silence on political critique evidently was the same as in the case of the 2003 and 2007 exhibitions. Open discussion on p ­ olitical conundrum exposed by artistic means was deemed unacceptable, just as in the Soviet times, because it was uncomfortable for the authorities. It was much easier to charge opposition at an ideological level on immoral and ­anti-religious (meaning anti-national) attitudes than to admit that there might be some problems requiring changes in the existing power structure. In their suppression of opposing voices by ideological critique, in the case of Pussy Riot, the Russian authorities used blasphemy, a traditionally atheism-related issue, as a means to subordinate criticism of the functioning and conservative values of the Russian state. Sharafutdinova aptly has called this Putin’s ­“morality policy.”86 The policy evidently started during the 2003 exhibition process, when Fr. Shargunov had demanded the Russian government to promulgate a law that would “protect religious believers from offence.”87 The roc joined the choir in early April 2012, when its Supreme Council appealed to the Church members and supporters to fight against “anti-church forces.” After singling out Pussy Riot, the text, read aloud on Palm Sunday (8 April) in Orthodox l­ iturgies throughout Russia, mentioned several attacks on churches and damaging of (some tens of) icons (by knife), identified them as a “campaign against ­Orthodoxy and the Russian Orthodox Church” and urged hierarchs, pastors and laymen to “defend what God has given us.”88 In concert with the roc, on September 25, 2012, the State Duma began to draft an amendment of the Criminal Code article 148 (Obstruction of the Exercise of Right of Liberty of Conscience and Religious Liberty). According to the news website Russia Beyond the Headlines, to validate the process the head of the Duma’s Social and Religious Organizations Committee, Yaroslav Nilov, repeated the roc view by singling out the Pussy Riot affair, as well as attacks on priests and damaging of icons and other religions things as reasons why such an amendment was necessary. The roc spokesman Chaplin argued that the law was also needed for national security: “As we know,” insulting religious beliefs and other such actions “have led to many conflicts throughout history.” Critics thought that the existing laws already protected believers adequately and that the proposed clampdown was but a new means to control and ­censor 86 87 88

Sharafutdinova, “The Pussy Riot Affair,” 615. Anderson, “Rocks, Art, and Sex,” 321. “Appeal of Russian Church Supreme Council on the Antichurch Forces,” Interfax, April 4, 2012, http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=documents&div=207 (accessed May 11, 2014).

280

LAITILA

opinions and organizations critical of present authorities. Atheists did not comment, nor were they asked their opinion.89 On June 11, 2013, the Russian Parliament unanimously passed the revised 148 article, now entitled “Violations of the Rights to Freedom of Conscience and Religion.” It singled out “intentional insult of feelings of believers,” particularly in “places specifically designated for public worship and other religious rites” as aggravating factors. At the same time, an article of the Code of Administrative Violations, “Insulting Religious Feelings of Citizens,” was amended to include religious books. Retribution for violating it would be fined up to 300,000 roubles (a two hundred-fold increase compared to the previous statute) or one-year term in prison. If violation was committed in a place of worship, the penalty could be as high as 500,000 roubles, or three years in prison.90 Media dubbed the articles as the ‘Blasphemy Law’. Mikhael Fedotov, head of the Presidential Council for Civil Society and ­Human Rights, clarified the Russia Beyond the Headlines matter by saying that if one claims (privately) that god does not exist he does not break the law. But if one goes to a church and the same passes his lips, particularly during a service, “then this is in clear violation of the law.”91 In effect, the matter is more complicated, because the text of the law is anything but exact. For example, it speaks of public offence, such as denial of the existence of God, and infringing one’s feelings, but does not precisely define either term. Moreover, secular authorities and the roc vary in how strictly to interpret the law. In the roc’s view, even writing ‘god’ with a lower case first letter in a pubic blog, as the wellknown web designer Artemiǐ Lebedev did, may be seen as breaking the law.92 Western reaction to the law was negative. pen International denounced it in early February 2014 in an open letter published in The Guardian and undersigned by dozens of famous and not-so-famous artists:

89

90

91 92

Roman Vorobyov, “Russian Lawmakers Stand Up for Their Religious Citizens,” in Russia Beyond the Headlines, October 1, 2012, http://rbth.com/articles/2012/10/01/russian _lawmakers_stand_up_for_their_religious_citizens_18715.html (accessed May 11, 2014). Kananovich, “‘Execute Not Pardon’,” 418–420. See also Yulia Ponomareva, “New Law Protecting Religious Feelings Divides Russians,” in Russia Beyond the Headlines, June 14, 2012, http://rbth.com/society/2013/06/14/new_law_protecting_religious_feelings_divides _russians_27089.html (accessed May 11, 2014); Russian Federal Law N 136-FZ, http:// www.venninstitute.org/files/Russian_Blasphemy_Law_of_June_2013.pdf (accessed May 11, 2014). Ponomareva, “New Law Protecting Religious Feelings.” Grigoriǐ Tumanov et al., “Law on Protecting Feelings,” in Kommersant, September 27, 2012, http://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/1209g.html (accessed May 11, 2014).

RUSSIA: ATHEISM, ‘BLASPHEMY’, STATE AND ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY

281

Russian voices, both literary and journalistic, have always striven to make themselves heard above the clamour of their nation’s unfolding story – commenting on it, shaping it and, in doing so, contributing to the political and intellectual shape of the world far beyond their country’s borders. But during the last 18 months, Russian lawmakers have passed a number of laws that place a chokehold on the right to express oneself freely in Russia. As writers and artists, we cannot stand quietly by as we watch our fellow writers and journalists pressed into silence or risking prosecution and often drastic punishment for the mere act of communicating their thoughts.93 By August 2014, the ‘Blasphemy Law’ had not yet been enforced anywhere in Russia, nor are societies propagating atheism included on the Russian Federation Ministry of Justice’s list of extreme organizations.94 However, according to the opinion of Evgeniĭ Onegin, a Zdravomyslie researcher, “the imprecise wording of the law and stricter punishments have affected media freedom and resulted in a growth of self-censorship among journalists.”95 12.6 Conclusions It is hard to tell how much, or little, atheism interests Russians.96 In any case, open interest in atheism is relatively rare and limited, for the most part, to males. One segment of atheists is made of old-style communists, who are accustomed to think that religion, or belief in god(s), is naturally harmful and should be fought against. The other consists of a younger generation whose main way of propagating atheism is through the Internet and Facebook, both to a large extent controlled by the state. In addition, from an opposite 93

“Russian Laws Choking Free Speech Must Be Repealed Now,” in The Guardian, February 6, 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/06/russian-laws-choking-free-speech -repealed (accessed May 11, 2014). 94 See http://minjust.ru/ru/extremist-materials (in Russian), (accessed May 11, 2014). 95 Ekaterina Buchneva, “Russia: Blasphemy Law Has Aided the Growth of Religious Censorship,” in Index on Censorship November 13, 2015, https://www.indexoncensorship .org/2015/11/blasphemy-law-has-resulted-in-growth-of-religious-censorship-in-russia/ (accessed April 14, 2016). Onegin’s report, in Russian, is available at http://zdravomyslie .info/cat/8-articles/405-ogranichenie-svobody-slova-v-sredstvakh-massovoj-informatsiikak-posledstvie-prinyatiya-zakona-o-zashchite-chuvstv-veruyushchikh (accessed April 14, 2016). 96 Cf. Eremenko, “Live without God.”

282

LAITILA

­ erspective, atheism also interests a small section of extreme (anti-western, p statist, anti-globalist97) Russian Orthodox people, for whom atheism, or blasphemy as they usually say, is part of the evil (foreign) forces they fight against to ‘save’ Russia. The rest of Russians are democratic, liberal, tolerant, secular, indifferent, pious or otherwise, but do not take a public stand for atheism. There may be several reasons for behaving so but a major one is, as I suggested above, that atheism is counted among ideologies and practices that the government and other prevailing authorities consider as their enemies. Moreover, a public atheist is considered a ‘false’ Russian, someone having betrayed his nation, country, and culture. Therefore most of the potential supporters of secularization (including the right to be an atheist) keep silent, whereas more and more Russians declare themselves Orthodox, on ethnic and cultural rather than purely religious grounds.98 It is hardly surprising that the active atheists’ own experience is negative. Their best-known spokesperson, controversial journalist Aleksandr Nevzorov, said to the news agency Ria Novosti in June 2012 that in Russia it is now “plain scary to be an atheist.”99 That point is similar to one made by Terry Eagleton in his 2006 review of Dawkins’s The God Delusion: “In its admirably angry way, The God Delusion argues that the status of atheists in the United States is nowadays about the same as that of gays fifty years ago.”100 I do not know if Dawkins is correct about the us, but Nevzorov seems both to be correct and to miss the point. He is correct in the sense that atheists, alongside other critical voices, have a hard time under the growing authoritarian101 (secular and clerical) administration. He misses the point because in Russia disputes on god(s) and their (alleged) existence has been interwoven into, and subordinated to, 97 98

See Papkova, The Orthodox Church, 184. Cf. Geoffrey Evans and Ksenia Northmore-Ball, “The Limits of Secularization? The Resurgence of Orthodoxy in Post-Soviet Russia,” in Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 51 (2012), 799–801, 805–806. 99 Eremenko, “Live without God.” See also a similar-sounding article in The Freethinker, August 25, 2013, in http://freethinker.co.uk/2013/08/25/first-they-targeted-homosexualsthen-the-pastafarians-now-russia-guns-for-atheist-extremists/ (accessed April 16, 2016). 100 Terry Eagleton, “Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching,” in London Review of Books, October 11, 2006, http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-f lailing-mispunching (accessed May 13, 2014). 101 Since 2005, the u.s.-based Freedom House has categorized Russia as a country with no freedom of expression. In late 2013, the Duma promulgated a law, (it took effect in ­February 2014), which allows the prosecutor general’s office to block any web site considered as ‘extreme’. Kananovich, “’Execute Not Pardon’,” 362, 371.

RUSSIA: ATHEISM, ‘BLASPHEMY’, STATE AND ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY

283

a larger phobia of all liberal and secular views challenging the roc’s and the nationalists’ conservative claim about Orthodoxy’s ‘leading’ role in the making of new Russian nation, state, culture, and identity.102 References Agadjanian, Alexander. 2008. Russian Orthodox Vision of Human Rights: Recent Documents and Their Significance. Erfurter Vorträge zur Kulturgeschichte des Orthodoxen Christentums 7/2008. Universität Erfurt: Lehrstuhl für Religionswissenschaft. Ageev, Dmitry. 2003. “‘Beware of Religion!’: A Rebirth of Militant Atheism in Moscow.” 2003. [Article on the website of the Department for External Relations of the Church.] http://orthodoxeurope.org/print/9/3.aspx (accessed April 29, 2014). Alfaev, Hilarion (Bishop). 2006. Orthodox Witness Today. Geneva: World Council of Churches. Anderson, John. 2012. “Rocks, Art, and Sex: The ‘Culture Wars’ Come to Russia?” Journal of Church and State 55: 307–334. doi:10.1093/jcs/css085. Anonymous. June 17, 2004. “Judge Faults Indictment in Anti-religious Art Case.” Mir religiǐ. in http://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/0406a.html (accessed May 2, 2014). Anonymous. 2010. “Moscow Rejects Ad Quoting Constitutional Freedom of Religion.” 2010. http://www.theotherrussia.org/2010/10/19/moscow-rejects-ad-quoting-consti tutional-freedom-of-religion/ (accessed April 29, 2014). Antonova, Natalia. February 22, 2011. “Battle of Faith Could Head to the Courts.” Moscow News. http://themoscownews.com/society/20110222/188439821.html (accessed May 4, 2011). “Appeal of Russian Church Supreme Council on the Antichurch Forces.” Interfax. April 4, 2012. http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=documents&div=207 (accessed May 11, 2014). The Basis of the Social Concept. https://mospat.ru/en/documents/social-concepts/ (accessed May 6, 2014). Bernstein, Anya. 2013. “An Inadvertent Sacrifice: Body Politics and Sovereign Power in the Pussy Riot Affair.” Critical Inquiry 40: 220–241. Buchneva, Ekaterina. November 13, 2015. “Russia: Blasphemy Law Has Aided the Growth of Religious Censorship.” Index on Censorship. https://www.indexoncencorship .org/2015/11/blashphemy-law-has-resulted-ingrowth-of-religious-censorship-in -russia/ (accessed April 14, 2016). 102 See Anderson, “Rocks, Art, and Sex”; Schroeder & Karpov, “The Crimes and Punishments,” 302–303.

284

LAITILA

Darmaros, Maria. April 23, 2012. “The Russian Orthodox Church Won’t Be Silent.” Russia Beyond the Headlines. http://rbth.com/articles/2012/04/23/the_russian_orthodox _church_wont_be_silent_15 378.html (accessed May 11, 2014). Denysenko, Nicholas. 2013. “An Appeal to Mary: An Analysis of Pussy Riot’s Punk Performance in Moscow.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 81: 1061–1092. “Dokument: ‘Obrashchaemsya k gosurarstvennoǐ vlasti s bros’boǐ tsroyavet’ v ramkah zakona miloserdie k osuzhdennym’. Zayablenie VTsS RPTs MP.” [Document: Statement to the Governmental Power on the Petition to Show within the Frames of Law Mercy towards Prisoners. A Pronouncement of the Supreme Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate], 2012. http://www.portalcredo.ru/site/ print.php?act=news&id=94522August 2012 (accessed May 10, 2014). [English translation: http://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/1208e.html#14.] Eagleton, Terry. October 11, 2006. “Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching.” London Review of Books. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching (accessed May 13, 2014). Eremenko, Alexcey. June 26, 2012. “Live without God: Non-believers in Post-Soviet Russia.” Ria Novosti. http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20120626/174256633.html (accessed May 5, 2014). Evans, Geoffrey and Northmore-Ball Ksenia. 2012. “The Limits of Secularization? The Resurgence of Orthodoxy in Post-Soviet Russia.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 51: 795–808. Froese, Paul. 2008. The Plot to Kill God: Findings from the Soviet Experiment in Secularization. Berkeley: University of California Press. Gessen, Masha. 2014. Words Will Break Cement: The Passion of Pussy Riot. London: Granta. Greene, Robert H. 2010. Bodies Like Bright Stars; Saints and Relicts in Orthodox Russia. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press. Humphries, Conor. 2010. “Russia [:] Church Wants End to Darwin School ‘Monopoly’.” 2010. http://in.reuters.com/article/2010/06/09/us-russia-religion-darwin- idINTRE6584JX 20100609 (accessed April 29, 2014). Kananovich, Volha. 2015. “’Execute Not Pardon’: The Pussy Riot Case, Political Speech, and Blasphemy in Russian Law.” Communication Law and Policy 20, 343–422. doi 10.1080/10811680.2015.1078682 Kishkovksy, Sophia. July 12, 2010. “Organizers of Art Show Convicted in Moscow,” in The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/arts/design/13curators. html?_r=0 (accessed May 11, 2014). Knox, Zoe. 2005. Russian Society and the Orthodox Church: Religion in Russia after Communism. London: RoutledgeCurzon. Kobetskii, V.D. 1980. “Study of the Processes of Overcoming Religiosity and of the ­Dissemination of Atheism.” Soviet Sociology. 18: 79–103, 19, 50–62, 67–102.

RUSSIA: ATHEISM, ‘BLASPHEMY’, STATE AND ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY

285

Kozlov, Vladimir. October 21, 2010. “Atheist Ad Campaign Nixed.” Moscow News. http:// themoscownews.com/society/20101021/188145146.html (accessed May 4, 2014). Centre Levada 2012. “Rossiyane o religii I tserkvi [The Russians on religion and the Church].” http://www.levada.ru/2012/10/11/rossiyane-o-religii-i-tserkvi/ (accessed April 14, 2016). Papkova, Irina. 2011. The Orthodox Church and Russian Politics. New York: Oxford University Press. Ponomareva, Yulia. June 14, 2012. “New Law Protecting Religious Feelings Divides Russians.” Russia Beyond the Headlines. http://rbth.com/society/2013/06/14/new_law _protecting_religious_feelings_divides_r ussians_27089.html (accessed May 11, 2014). Russian Federal Law N 136-FZ [‘Blasphemy Law’], valid from July 1, 2013. http://www .venninstitute.org/files/Russian_Blasphemy_Law_of_June_2013.pdf (accessed May 11, 2014). Schroeder, Rachel L. and Karpov Vyavheslav. “The Crimes and Punishments of the ­‘Enemies of the Church’ and the Nature of Russia’s Desecularising Regime.” Religion, State and Society. 41 (2013), 284–311. doi 10.1080/09637494.2013.837705. Simons, Greg. 2009. The Role of the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia since 1990: Changing Dynamics of Politics and Religion. Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press. Sharafutdinova, Gulnar. 2014. “The Pussy Riot Affair and Putin’s Demarche from Sovereign Democracy to Sovereign Morality.” Nationalities Papers 42, 615–621. doi 10.1080/00905992.2014.936933. Shterin, Marat. 2012. “Secularization or De-secularization? The Challenges of and from the Post- Soviet Experience.” In The Social Significance of Religion in the Enlarged Europe: Secularization, Individualization and Pluralization. ed. Detlef Pollack, Olaf Müller and Gert Pickel. 143–166. Farnham, Surrey, UK: Ashgate. Vorobyov, Roman. October 1, 2012. “Russian Lawmakers Stand Up for Their Religious Citizens.” R ­ ussia Beyond the Headlines. http://rbth.com/articles/2012/10/01/russian _lawmakers_stand_up_for_their_religious_ citizens_18715.html (accessed May 11, 2014). Thrower, James. 1983. Marxist-Leninist ‘Scientific Atheism’ and the Study of Religion and ­Atheism in the USSR. Berlin: Mouton. Thrower, James. 1992. Marxism-Leninism as the Civil Religion of Soviet Society: God’s C ­ ommissar. Lewiston, NY: E. Mellen Press. Tumanov, Grigoriǐ, Chernykh Aleksandr & Korobov Pavel. September 27, 2012. “Law on Protecting Feelings [Zakon o zashchite chubstv].” Kommersant. http://www2 .stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/1209g.html (accessed May 11, 2014). Wynot, Jennifer. 2004. Keeping the Faith: Russian Orthodox Monasticism in the Soviet Union, 1917–1939. College Station, Tex: A&M University Press. Zolotov, Andrei. 2001. “Russian Intellectuals Try to Revive Atheism,” http://www.chris tianitytoday.com/ct/2001/januaryweb-only/34.0b.html (accessed April 29, 2014).

chapter 13

Spain: The Atheist Bus Campaign and the Uncertain Future of Organized Atheism in Spain1 Javier Martínez-Torrón and Silvia Meseguer Velasco 13.1 Introduction Atheistic philosophies have inspired political parties or organizations in Spain for a long time; this was the case, for example, of anarchist, communist and socialist parties and unions that began to operate in Spain since the late 19th century. However, organized atheism as such is a recent phenomenon in Spain, which has become active and visible in the last two decades, approximately, through a number of – usually small – organizations. The activity of these organizations seems to contradict the typically assumed notion that atheism is an exclusively individualistic phenomenon. In Spain, organized atheism has often been characterized by a militant attitude, overtly inspired by their interest in terminating what they consider unacceptable privileges of religion, especially the Catholic Church. Such attitude has been expressed sometimes in public demonstrations conceived as mocking anti-religious replicas of, and counter-reactions against, public manifestations of religiosity, normally Catholic. At other times, the action of organized atheism has channeled through judicial battles against what the plaintiffs thought were manifestations of a privileged status of religion in the public sphere. One of the collective atheistic initiatives that has attracted the most attention by the media has been the so-called ‘atheist bus campaign’. It is well known that the origin of that campaign, under the slogan “There’s Probably No God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life,” originated in the United kingdom with an op-ed piece written by British journalist Ariane Sherine that sought, through advertising media in public transportation, mainly buses, to show and spread atheistic views to the rest of British society.2 It is also well known that the intention of the public debate that this campaign sought to open rests 1 This paper has been written in the context of the research project DER2011-29385 (Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation): “The public space and the ideological and religious neutrality of the State.” 2 See Sherine, Ariane. 2008. The Guardian, August 20, 2008, http://www.theguardian.com/ commentisfree/2008/jun/20/transport.religion (accessed 21/07/2016).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004328532_014

SPAIN: THE UNCERTAIN FUTURE OF ORGANIZED ATHEISM IN SPAIN

287

upon the ideas of the so-called ‘New Atheists’ such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens. In their works3 they address the i­ssue of unfavorable and even discriminatory treatment which, in their opinion, non-believers suffer in contrast to believers, and they demonstrate the need to show their atheistic convictions and to give them a wider dissemination and visibility in the public space.4 Likewise, in Spain, the Union of Atheists and Freethinkers (Unión de Ateos y Librepensadores, ual),5 together with other sister unions and local associations of similar characteristics,6 have been launching various campaigns in recent years (such as a campaign to remove the subject of religion in public schools,7 atheistic demonstrations and processions conceived as a sort of replica of religious processions, and, of course, the atheist bus campaign). According to the promoters, such campaigns and activities were mainly aimed at restructuring the social debate about religion in a way that included not only religious beliefs but also atheistic views. Ultimately, their intention was to assert that atheists, non-believers and freethinkers in general should receive the same respect that people who practice any religion enjoy by the mere holding or expressing of religious beliefs. 3 Among others, we can mention: Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Madrid: Bantam Books, 2006); Sam Harris, The End of Faith (Madrid: W. W. Norton & Company, 2007); Daniel Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon (Madrid: Viking/Penguin, 2007); Christopher Hitchens, God Does Not Exist (Barcelona: Random House Mondadori, 2009). 4 On this issue, see Ignacio Aréchaga, “Cuando los ateos se lanzan a predicar,” Aceprensa, November 26, 2008, available at http://www.aceprensa.com/articles/print/id/15559/ ­(accessed 21/07/2016). It has been argued that these ideas have caused certain reactions among “traditional” atheists: see Juan Meseguer, “Ateos militantes, un movimiento con poca ­gracia,” July 28, 2010, available at http://www.aceprensa.com/articles/ateos-militantes -un-movimiento-con-poca-gracia (accessed 21/07/2016). 5 Among the objectives set out in their Statutes include the following: “To promote the dissemination of atheism, the implementation of secularism and to defend the rights and liberties of atheists and citizens in general.” See http://ateos.org/ (accessed 21/07/2016). 6 Especially Asociación Madrileña de Ateos y Librepensadores [Atheists and Freethinkers Association of Madrid] (amal); Ateus de Catalunya [Atheists from Catalonia]; Associació Valenciana d’Ateus i Lliurepensadors [Atheists and Freethinkers Association of Valencia] (avall); Ateneu Eclèctic i Liberal d’Ateus i Agnòstics Unión de CyberAteos – Foro Ateo [Ateneo Eclectic and Liberal Atheists and Agnostics Union of Cyberatheists]. 7 Thus, under the slogan: “Religion in school? No thanks,” they initiated a campaign to suppress religion class from the Organic Law 2/2006 of May 2, 2006, of Education (boe 106, 4 May, 2006). See http://ateos.org/?p=114 and http://www.aceprensa.com/articles/print/id/15559/ (accessed 21/07/2016).

288

Martínez-Torrón AND MESEGUER VELASCO

The aforementioned campaign was carried out through the same advertising channel used in the United Kingdom, in particular through two public bus lines in the main Spanish cities, for a very limited time (two to four weeks). The results of this campaign were irregular in terms of acceptance and, above all, in relation to the actual dissemination of its message. Indeed, we should not lose sight of a significant factor: that the campaign has generated virtually no scholarly debate or literature in Spain. In this paper, we will first describe the development of the atheist bus campaign in the cities in which it was developed and the impact it had in the media, as well as the specific reasons provided by the organizers for its implementation in Spain. Thereafter, we will explain the social responses to the campaign and the legal actions relating to atheism in Spain. 13.2

The Development of the Atheist Bus Campaign in Spain

Barcelona – which had a Socialist Party mayor at that time – was the first city where the campaign was introduced, on January 12, 2009, on bus lines 14 and 41, with the slogan “Dios probablemente no existe. No te preocupes y disfruta de la vida,” a literal Spanish translation of “There’s Probably No God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life.” The Atheists Union of Catalonia (Ateus de Catalunya, AdC) had raised €9,354 through private donations, and had the explicit support of the Business Committee of Transports Metropolitans de Barcelona (tmb); it is unclear if that support included economic aid. Two weeks later, on January 27, 2009, the campaign was implemented in Madrid – the city was governed by a mayor from the Popular Party, which is considered liberal-conservative – in lines 3 and 5 of the Public Transportation Service of Madrid (emt), with the peculiarity, in this case, that the route of one of those lines passed just in front of the offices of the Catholic Archdiocese of Madrid and the Almudena Cathedral. This time, the campaign was funded by the Madrid Association of Atheists and Freethinkers (amal), and was expressly approved by the Committee on Self-Regulation of Advertising.8 Alongside these two major cities, the bus campaign moved to other medium size Spanish cities that were not initially foreseen and, on the contrary, the campaign was not authorized in other cities that the organizers had in mind. Among the first is Malaga, where the campaign was implemented on the same 8 Call for the “atheist bus” campaign in Madrid, dated January 25, 2009. See http://busateu.org/ wp-content/uploads/Convocatoria-campanya-25-ener-2009-Madrid-Malaga.pdf (accessed 21/07/2016).

SPAIN: THE UNCERTAIN FUTURE OF ORGANIZED ATHEISM IN SPAIN

289

date as in Madrid, on January 26, 2009, on lines 1 and 17,9 but it produced no significant results. On March 7, 2009, the campaign moved to La Coruña, using the bus lines 3 and 6, and it was also funded by Union of Atheists and Freethinkers10 (the campaign had to be postponed because the initial schedule coincided with the municipal elections). The peculiarity which the campaign presented in this city was that, while having different routes, another three buses were circulating with Christian messages that read: “He who does not believe in Jesus is condemned.” The bus routes came together at a common point, without causing social reactions worth mentioning.11 On the contrary, the campaign could not spread to other bigger cities such as Saragossa, Seville and Valencia, where the relevant municipal authorities refused, for various reasons, the authorization of the campaign buses. In Saragossa, the mayor of the city (Socialist Party)12 was adamant and branded the campaign message as “anachronistic.” The municipal transportation company (tuzsa) refused to authorize the advertising campaign on city buses alleging a clause in the contract of the company that manages advertising in urban buses, which expressly prohibits “advertisements of political, religious, sexual or violent character, as well as for alcoholic beverages or tobacco, without the prior written consent of tuzsa.”13 In view of the refusal, the Union of Atheists and Freethinkers installed a huge banner with the same campaign slogan (“God probably does not exist. Do not worry and enjoy life”) on a building under construction in one of the main streets of the city, adding some passages of Article 20 of the Constitution of 1978, which guarantees freedom of expression. Moreover, they decided to file a legal suit against the public transportation company and the City of Saragossa,14 ­considering that 9 See http://busateu.org/wp-content/uploads/Convocatoria-campanya-25-ener-2009 -Madrid-Malaga.pdf (accessed 21/07/2016). 10 In this city, the campaign was shown in a Galician language version. The Railway ­Company of A Coruña authorized it considering that the content of the message was indifferent. See http://www.laopinioncoruna.es/sociedad/2009/03/08/sociedad-buses-ateos-recorren/ 266751.html (accessed 21/07/2016). 11 Available at http://www.lavozdegalicia.es/sociedad/2009/03/08/0003_7576750.htm (accessed 21/07/2016). 12 To understand better the significance of the mayor’s attitude, it must be noted that in Spain the Socialist Party is characterized by a clearly secularist and separationist view of the relations between the state and religion. Many of its leaders openly express their atheism or agnosticism, as well as their position favourable to achieve a public sphere free from the visibility of religion. 13 Available at http://www.aragondigital.es/noticia.asp?notid=55156 (accessed 20/08/2014). 14 See http://busateu.org/wp-content/uploads/nota-premsa-24-03-2009.pdf (accessed 21/07/2016). Apparently the lawsuit was never submitted.

290

Martínez-Torrón AND MESEGUER VELASCO

the denial of permission for advertising the campaign on public buses involved a covert form of censorship and therefore a violation of the fundamental rights of equality, ideological freedom, and freedom of expression which are protected, respectively, by Articles 14, 16 and 20 of the Spanish Constitution.15 In Seville, city officials publicly acknowledged that the scheduled date for the bus campaign was coincident with the celebration of the Catholic Holy Week16 and contended that it was not the right time to implement the campaign. Therefore, the mayor of the city (Socialist Party) decided to postpone the implementation of the campaign. Meanwhile, the spokesman for the public transportation company (tussam) stated that the campaign “had no place” on the city bus because of the conditions of the contract with the company managing advertising (Clear Channel), which only allowed advertisements with commercial purposes (except alcohol and tobacco), as well as institutional advertising of the city. tussam added that they had never made any exception before; indeed, they had rejected requests for similar advertising by an evangelical church and a union of nurses.17 The city council representatives of a left-wing political party of communist orientation (Izquierda Unida) offered alternative advertising channels to the organizers of the bus campaign. In the end, however, the campaign was not authorized.18 Something similar occurred in Valencia. The date chosen by the organizers to implement the campaign coincided with the celebration of a typical festivity of Valencia (Las Fallas, on the date of Saint-Joseph, patron-saint of the city). The mayoress of Valencia (Popular Party) did not authorize the campaign, alleging mainly formal reasons such as the fact that the bus lines chosen or the start date had not been communicated. Meanwhile, the Association of Atheists and Freethinkers of Valencia (Avall), threatened to file a lawsuit against the city in the event that they should choose not to authorize the advertising campaign.19 We are not aware of such a lawsuit actually being filed. 15

An English unofficial version of the Spanish Constitution is available in the web pages of the Spanish Constitutional Court: http://www.tribunalconstitucional.es/en/constitucion/ Pages/ConstitucionIngles.aspx (accessed 21/07/2016). 16 In Seville, as in many other Spanish cities, the celebration of the Catholic Holy Week is accompanied by a number of very popular religious processions in streets, which involve the vast majority of the city inhabitants – and, in the case of Seville, attract a huge number of tourists from Spain and abroad. 17 See http://elpais.com/diario/2009/02/11/andalucia/1234308133_850215.html (accessed 21/07/2016). 18 See http://www.diariodesevilla.es/article/sevilla/422645/iu/ofrece/los/promotores/bus/ ateo/plasmar/su/campana/otros/soportes.html (accessed 21/07/2016). 19 See http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2009/01/09/valencia/1231516539.html (accessed 21/07/2016).

SPAIN: THE UNCERTAIN FUTURE OF ORGANIZED ATHEISM IN SPAIN

291

At the national level, the campaign had an impact on the national and regional press, as well as on public television, where some programs were broadcast during primetime, with a strong positioning in favor of the campaign and of having atheism more widely disseminated in Spanish society.20 Two persons actively involved in atheist movements in Spain published a book reproducing the title of the campaign – aimed at the common reader, not at the scholarly community – focusing on an explanation of the implications of being an atheist, the history of atheism and the origin of religious thought, and the tensions between science and religion.21 The events surrounding the atheist bus campaign, summarily described in the foregoing pages, help us better understand the reasons given for the organization of the campaign by the Union of Atheists and Freethinkers of Spain in a press release.22 On the one hand, they intended to give more visibility to the existence of atheists, and non-believers in general, in order to express and defend their beliefs in public. In their opinion, atheism should begin to be considered a perfectly respectable way of thinking, which promotes positive proposals for the progress and welfare of society. On the other hand, in view of the increasing secularization of Spanish society, they wanted to make it clear that non-believers are an increasingly popular option, as demonstrated by national and regional sociological surveys. In addition, they tried to spur public debate and to disseminate the proposals of atheistic thought, encouraging society “to have an independent and critical thinking, with respect for all those options which in turn are respectful with people and their rights.” They also explained that one of their objectives was denouncing the privileges that religious denominations have in Spain, especially the Catholic Church as an institution protected by the Concordat23 and the Organic Law on Religious Freedom.24

20

For example, on the program Informe Semanal [Weekly Report], issued on 31/01/2009. See http://www.rtve.es/alacarta/videos/television/informe-semanal/396209/ (accessed 21/07/2016). 21 Gabriel García Voltà and Joan Carles Marset, Probablemente Dios no existe (Barcelona: Del bronce, 2009). 22 See http://busateu.org/wp-content/uploads/Rueda-prensa-8-ene-09.pdf (accessed 21/07/2016). 23 Agreements between the Spanish State and the Holy See signed at the Vatican City on January 3, 1979 (boe 300, December 15, 1979). 24 Organic Law 7/1980, of July 5, 1980, on Religious Freedom (boe 177, July 24, 1980). For an extensive and pluralistic analysis of this significant law and the possibilities of its future modification, see Rafael Navarro-Valls, Joaquín Mantecón & Javier Martínez-Torrón

292

Martínez-Torrón AND MESEGUER VELASCO

With more specific reference to details of the bus campaign, the press release also indicated that the slogan in question did not have any significance, and that any other could have been chosen; in fact, since they define ­themselves as people who ground their beliefs on reason, they cannot definitely assert that God does not exist. From a legal perspective, they considered that such expressions are based on constitutional rights – namely freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as well as freedom of expression – and argued that they should not be restricted by any kind of censorship, for those rights are enshrined in the Spanish Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.25 Finally, they explained that the target audiences of the campaign were not people who have religious beliefs, but those who do not, i.e., atheists and agnostics, with the intention not to convince them but rather to let them know that there are many more people like them. 13.3

Social Responses

As occurred in other European cities, various sectors of Spanish society did not wait long to respond. These responses came mainly from major religious communities – the Catholic Church and, to a lesser extent, religious communities that have signed a cooperation agreement with the Spanish state26 – as well as from some politicians and from the general public. The degree of reaction and the types of responses of religious communities was diverse. Certainly, the Catholic Church, through the Spanish Bishops Conference and Catholic organizations, had one of the strongest reactions. Meanwhile, the reaction of Evangelical communities also had some significance, since they tried to counter the effect of the campaign with their own local campaigns. In contrast, Muslim and Jewish communities did not issue an

25 26

­(coords.), Religious freedom and its legal regulation: the Organic Law on Religious Freedom (Iustel: Madrid, 2009). See Articles 16 and 20 of the Spanish Constitution, and Article 18 udhr. Article 16.3 of the Spanish Constitution states: “Public authorities shall take into account the religious beliefs of Spanish society and shall consequently maintain appropriate cooperation relations with the Catholic Church and other denominations.” The Laws 24/1992, 25/1992 and 26/1992, of November 10, 1992, approved the cooperation agreements between the Spanish state and the Federation of Evangelical Entities of Spain (ferede), the Federation of Jewish Communities (fci), and the Islamic Commission of Spain (cie), respectively; boe 272, November, 12, 1992.

SPAIN: THE UNCERTAIN FUTURE OF ORGANIZED ATHEISM IN SPAIN

293

official statement on this issue, although some ripostes could be observed (in the case of the former) via websites or social networks. The Catholic Church made its view public through a press release delivered by the Spanish Bishops Conference on January 23, 2009, entitled: “­Advertising on public buses harmful to religious freedom.”27 The Bishops Conference ­affirmed that the campaign in question contained, among other things, b­ lasphemous expressions and publicity that was damaging to religious freedom. Consequently, Spanish bishops called on civil authorities to protect the full exercise of religious freedom, reconciling it with the protection and promotion of freedom of expression, which should not be brandished as an excuse to deliberately offend other citizens’ deeply felt beliefs. The bishops’ declaration recognized that freedom of expression was a fundamental right of every citizen, adding that public spaces of common and obliged use for all citizens “must not be utilized to publicize messages that offend the religious beliefs of many of them,” otherwise it would result in impairment of the right to the free exercise of religion, “which must be guaranteed without anyone being denigrated or attacked.” For the bishops, “to suggest that God is probably a believers’ invention, and to assert moreover that God allows them neither to live in peace nor to enjoy life, is objectively a blasphemy and an insult to believers […]”28 Two bishops in particular, the Archbishops of Barcelona and Madrid, responded also individually to the campaign developed on buses, focusing on the idea that public media should not be used to undermine fundamental rights. For religious believers, they noted, faith in the existence of God is not a cause for concern29 but rather for consolation and freedom.30 Out of the official hierarchical structure, a Catholic organization, e-­cristians, both in Barcelona and Madrid, tried to counter the effects of the atheistic campaign with their own campaign for the existence of God on the city bus. They chose as their slogan a sentence that they attributed to Mahatma Gandhi in 27 Available at http://web.archive.org/web/20100331061531/http://www.conferenciaepisco pal.es/actividades/2009/enero_23.html; see also https:/es.zenit.org/articles/a-proposito -del-bus-ateo/ (accessed 21/07/2016). See also https://es.zenit.org/articles/a-proposito-del -bus-ateo/ (accessed 17/07/2016). 28 At the same time, against statements by the Catholic Church, the promoters of the campaign made some remarks, which can be found at: http://busateu.org/wp-content/ uploads/Comunicado-campanya-18-ene-2009.pdf (accessed 21/07/2016). 29 See http://elpais.com/diario/2009/01/03/catalunya/1230948439_850215.html (accessed 21/07/2016). 30 See http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2009/01/25/espana/1232888181.html (accessed 21/07/2016).

294

Martínez-Torrón AND MESEGUER VELASCO

order to present it as a universal message: Cuando todos te abandonan, Dios sigue contigo (“When everyone leaves you, God remains with you”).31 Another Catholic organization, Spanish Alternative (aes), organized protests and demonstrations against the atheistic campaign and requested local authorities to withdraw the advertisement, announcing that for every secular bus they would rent two buses with the slogan “Dios existe, confía en él” (“God exists, trust in Him”), thus supporting the initiative of the Evangelicals32 (explained below). According to this Catholic association, the atheistic propaganda was behind “the proliferation of attacks directed against Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.” It considered that this was an aggressive campaign that offended millions of believers and had implicit state support, since the city bus companies are often owned by the municipality and therefore the final decision on advertising belonged to the public authorities.33 The response of Evangelical Christians was mainly channeled through a small community of less than one hundred faithful called Christian Meeting Center. They funded a bus publicity campaign, with the slogan Dios sí existe, disfruta de la vida en Cristo (“God does exist, enjoy life in Christ”), which developed in the City of Madrid and in some other smaller cities of the region of Madrid, namely Fuenlabrada, Leganés and Aluche.34 Also, an Evangelical shop, Abba, began selling large magnetic posters to place on the front door of the car, which read: Dios existe. Yo le conozco, por eso disfruto de la vida (“­God exists. I know Him, this is why I enjoy life”).35 A well-known Muslim website, run by one of the main Spanish Islamic organizations, published a description of the bus campaign in various countries in which it was already ongoing and announced its imminent implementation in Barcelona. The article concluded asking God “to protect us from the undesirable atheist bus.”36 In an opposite direction, a national newspaper

31 See http://www.forumlibertas.com/frontend/forumlibertas/noticia.php?id_noticia=127 65 (accessed 21/07/2016). 32 See http://www.diarioya.es/content/los-autobuses-cat%C3%B3licos-de-aes-circulan-des de-ayer-por-madrid (accessed 21/07/2016). 33 See http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2009/01/26/madrid/1232963349.html (accessed 21/07/2016). 34 See http://elpais.com/elpais/2009/01/07/actualidad/1231319822_850215.html (accessed 21/07/2016). 35 See http://www.mitiendaevangelica.com/libro.asp?codart=001000000 (accessed 21/07/2016). 36 See http://www.webislam.com/articulos/35844-el_autobus_ateo.html (accessed 21/07/2016).

SPAIN: THE UNCERTAIN FUTURE OF ORGANIZED ATHEISM IN SPAIN

295

published that the president of a Spanish federation of Islamic communities (Felix Herrero, from feeri) stated that, in his opinion, atheists “have every right” to carry on that campaign and that this advertising was not necessarily ­offensive. Likewise, the same source reported that the president of the main federation of Islamic communities in Spain (Riay Tatary, from ucide) had affirmed: “­Everyone is free to express what he wants as far as he respects the others.”37 To our knowledge, the Federation of Jewish Communities of Spain issued no official statement on this issue. With regard to political reactions, as we have already mentioned in the second section of this chapter, the responses of municipal authorities were diverse and, interestingly, did not follow any clear pattern on the basis on their respective partisan affiliation. Thus, some socialist mayors authorized the atheist bus campaign in their cities while others did not, and the same occurred with mayors of the Popular Party. In Madrid, the mayor, of the Popular Party, authorized the campaign and received many criticisms in social networks for it, and the same occurred to the socialist mayor of Saragossa for doing exactly the opposite. With regard to public opinion, some isolated reactions by individuals were reported. Here and there, some passers-by taunted the atheist buses when they crossed on their route. A bus driver said that on his bus some Catholics had distributed cards with the sentence “If you die tonight, where will you spend eternity?” Some bus drivers considered what the appropriate moral choice should be. In particular, a Catholic driver who was in charge of a shift driving a bus carrying the atheist advertisement tried to switch his shift with a colleague, unsuccessfully. In the opposite direction, other drivers expressed their desire to have their shifts during a time when the atheist bus circulated even though they were assigned to other routes.38 By and large, we can affirm that the atheist bus campaign in Spain was implemented for a very short period of time and did not have a remarkable social or political impact. It was an ephemeral anecdote in the social life of the country, which generated a limited media debate and some intense – but also 37 See http://m.publico.es/189376 (accessed 20/08/2014). 38 By contrast, in London, a bus driver (Ron Heather) refused, on conscience grounds, to drive buses with the slogan “There’s Probably no God” and, despite having no other available bus service, he did not cover his route. In this situation, the managers of the company, with the intention of not raising controversy, accepted the decision without penalizing the driver and agreed to only make him drive it in those cases where no other driver was available. See https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jan/16/atheism-christian-advertisements -buses, accessed 21/07/2016. In Italy, bus drivers were allowed to object and not drive the atheist buses. See http://www.rtve.es/noticias/20090116/objecion-conciencia-llega -autobuses/220986.shtml, accessed 21/07/2016.

296

Martínez-Torrón AND MESEGUER VELASCO

limited and momentary – reactions from religious communities. If the intention of its organizers was to promote and stimulate a debate about atheism and religion in the public sphere, the campaign was a failure, for such debate neither lasted long nor was serious. It is also relevant to mention that, as indicated in the introduction, the bus campaign has not produced any scholarly debate or literature in Spain. 13.4

Legal Action Relating to Atheism

If the social response to the atheist bus campaign in Spain was quite limited, the legal response, aside from the above-mentioned municipal refusals of authorization for the campaign, has been non-existent. Neither lawsuits, nor any initiatives for legal or administrative reform, have followed. However, there has been, in the recent past, some legal action worth mentioning with respect to other activities related to atheism or to atheistic claims. Before referring to these, we will briefly describe the legal status of atheism in Spain. 13.4.1 Legal Status of Atheism in Spain Since the 1978 Constitution has been in force, Spanish courts and scholars have unambiguously maintained that the constitutional right to “freedom of ideology, religion and worship” (art. 16 of the Constitution), which refers both to religion and atheism, and therefore protects the atheistic convictions of individuals in the same conditions as religious beliefs.39 The 1980 Organic Law on Religious Freedom (lolr) unambiguously guarantees every person’s right to free choice with regard to his beliefs. Naturally, this individual right refers to beliefs as such and does not imply at all the need to choose a particular religion or church. According to art. 2.1.a) of that law, religious freedom “comprises the right of every person, with immunity from coercion, to […] profess the religious beliefs of his free choice or not to profess any […].” This is in conformity with the Human Rights Committee’s General Comment on Art. 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.40 Thus, in 39

40

See, for instance, Pedro J. Viladrich, “Ateísmo y libertad religiosa en la Constitución Española,” 22 Ius Canonicum (1982), pp. 31–86; José J. Amorós, La libertad religiosa en la Constitución española de 1978 (Tecnos: Madrid, 1984), pp. 176–186. Par. 2 of the General Comment explicitly states that art. 18 iccpr “protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief” (­General Comment No. 22: The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (­Art. 18): 30/07/93; CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4, General Comment No. 22).

SPAIN: THE UNCERTAIN FUTURE OF ORGANIZED ATHEISM IN SPAIN

297

Spanish law the term “freedom of ideology, religion and worship” embraces the freedom to hold and profess any type of beliefs, be they religious or nonreligious, as well as the right to abstain from professing any belief. When legal scholars often use the expression “religious freedom” it is just for the sake of brevity, and they understand it as including the protection of nonreligious beliefs. It is interesting to note that the foregoing applies strictly speaking to the individual dimension of this freedom. However, from the collective perspective of freedom of ideology, religion and worship, the lolr is designed specifically for the protection of, and the cooperation with, churches and religious denominations but not with groups of atheistic or humanistic orientation.41 Indeed, the latter are explicitly excluded from the scope of application of the Law by Article 3.2 lolr: The protection provided by this law shall not apply to those activities, purposes and entities relating to the study of and experimentation with psychic and parapsychological phenomena, to the dissemination of humanistic or spiritualistic values, or to other similar nonreligious aims. This characteristic of the lolr has typically raised two questions. First, is there an operational and distinguishable notion of religion in Spanish law? Second, to what extent does this position of the lolr constitute a breach of the equality principle? With respect to the first question, and to provide a simple response to a complex issue, we can affirm that at this moment there is no operative legal notion of religion in Spanish law, at least for the purposes of scrutinizing groups that apply for registration and legal personality as religious entities.42 With respect to the second question, although individual freedom of ideology and religion receives the same degree of protection in the case of atheists or agnostics and in the case of religious believers, the exclusion of atheistic groups from the scope of application of the lolr might seem discriminatory at first glance. Leaving aside theoretical considerations about the notion of religion and its role in society vis-à-vis organizations based on atheistic beliefs, the question can be responded in the negative from a pragmatic point of view. 41 42

See Javier Martínez-Torrón, Religión, derecho y sociedad (Comares: Granada, 1999), pp. 141–145. For a more detailed explanation and further references, see Javier Martínez-Torrón, ­Religion and Law in Spain, (Wolters-Kluwer, International Encyclopaedia of Laws: The Netherlands, 2014), paras. 281–285.

298

Martínez-Torrón AND MESEGUER VELASCO

On the one hand, state cooperation with religious communities – especially economic cooperation – tends to be more and more equalized with the state cooperating with foundations or non-profit institutions in general. In other words, once an institution has been legally recognized with non-profit status, it does not matter much if it is considered religious or not from the perspective of its potential to have access to tax benefits or to other types of public funding. Non-profit organizations can be even included among those beneficiaries of the so-called “tax assignment system” – initially designed to provide economic aid to the Catholic Church – according to which citizens can freely decide that 0.7 percent of their income tax is given either to the Catholic Church or to other non-profit entities, determined every year by the government depending on their activities and social impact.43 On the other hand, in Spain there is no possible comparison between the respective social weight of religions and institutionalized atheistic groups. Organized atheism’s social influence is minimal and they are hardly representative of the attitudes of people with atheistic or agnostic beliefs in Spain. For the rest, they can benefit from the autonomy that corresponds to their registration as ordinary associations, which is less than the autonomy recognized to religious denominations but is normally sufficient to protect adequately their freedom to disseminate their ideas in society; and moreover, as indicated above, makes them eligible for some ways of state economic cooperation when they meet the requirements of non-profit institutions. In addition to economic aid, these groups do not usually request other types of state cooperation that Article 16.3 of the Constitution reserves for religious denominations. This would be contradictory with their principles, for they preach a radical and strict separation between state and religion. Rather than aspiring to receive the same cooperation as religions, they ask the state not to cooperate with religion at all. They tend to conceive themselves – at least in Spain – not as groups that desire to be compared to religions (traditional or new) but as a counter-influence of religion in society. 43

For an explanation of the Spanish state’s economic cooperation with religion, see Javier Martínez-Torrón, Religion and Law in Spain, cited in note 42, paras. 486 et seq.; Silvia Meseguer Velasco, “Appraisal of the reformed system for financing the catholic church in Spain one year on form its implementation,” in Michaela Moravčíková and Eleonóra Valová (eds.), Financing of churches and religious societies in the 21st century (Institute for State-Church Relations: Bratislava, 2010), pp. 241–250; Silvia Meseguer Velasco, “A propósito de la reforma del sistema de asignación tributaria: hacia el sostenimiento económico de las confesiones religiosas,” 22 Revista General de Derecho Canónico y Derecho ­Eclesiástico del Estado (2010), especially pp. 10 et seq.

SPAIN: THE UNCERTAIN FUTURE OF ORGANIZED ATHEISM IN SPAIN

299

13.4.2 Litigation and Other Legal Action Caused by Organized Atheism’s Initiatives Self-understandings of atheistic associations in Spain can be seen in the various events that, aside from the bus campaign, have been organized in the last few years with the same declared goal of giving active atheists and their ideas more visibility in the public sphere and raising a social debate about the relations between state and religion. Interestingly, these events that claim to seek to give atheism greater visibility usually have been of a militant nature and have had the same specific target in Spain: Catholicism. Thus, for example, various atheist associations organized a number of actions aimed at sabotaging the Catholic World Youth Day 2011 held in Madrid. Also, in the last four years, the Association of Atheists and Freethinkers of Madrid has attempted to prepare an “atheist procession” in Madrid on the festivity of Holy Thursday, scheduled at the same time and with an itinerary parallel to a traditional Catholic procession – indeed, the plan consisted in carrying out a sort of “counter-procession.” Both initiatives have produced some legal action and litigation. With regard to the latter, the government delegation in Madrid, after consultation with the municipal authorities and the local police, prohibited the “atheist procession” in 2011, 2012, and 2014, on the ground of a possible disruption of public order, as well as an infringement of the right to religious freedom of others. In Spain, freedom of assembly is not subjected to a previous governmental authorization but demonstrations or rallies that occupy the public space in the city must be previously communicated in order to allow the competent authorities to adopt the opportune measures – in this case, the adopted measure was the prohibition of the “atheist procession” in the scheduled date and place. In 2013, the procession was not allowed on formal grounds, since its communication was submitted after the deadline. In all cases, except in 2013, the organizers filed a lawsuit for violation of their freedom of assembly and freedom of expression. And in the three cases the ­Superior Court of Justice of Madrid (tsjm) upheld the prohibition decreed by the government delegation.44 Those judgments remarked that neither freedom of assembly nor freedom of expressions are absolute rights and are subject to legitimate limitations, especially when they entail a temporal occupation of appropriation of the public space, which may impinge upon the rights of ­others and perhaps cause disturbance to public order. In this respect, the court 44

See the judgments of the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid, stsj Madrid 267/2011, 20 April 2011; stsj Madrid 213/2012, 30 March 2012; and stsj Madrid 209/2014, 14 April 2014.

300

Martínez-Torrón AND MESEGUER VELASCO

found that public authorities had appropriately assessed the situation and evaluated the possible conflict with the exercise of religious freedom by other citizens and the foreseeable disruption of public order. Among other factors, in 2011 the court emphasized the clear intention of offending and provoking Catholics, which had been explicitly recognized by some declarations of the organizers to the media;45 in 2012, the court noted that the element of provocation was so essential to the design of the “atheist procession” that – as explicitly acknowledged by the organizers – such an event would be inconceivable if not celebrated at the same time and in the same urban area as the Catholic religious processions of Holy Thursday;46 and in 2014, the court pointed out that the government had expressly told the organizers that there would not be any problem if they rescheduled their demonstration for an alternative date. An appeal to the Constitutional Court against the 2014 judgment was lodged on May 12, 2014.47 In 2014, the atheist procession, rescheduled and redesigned as a rally, finally took place in Madrid on May 30th, calling for a more secular society and a radical separation between religion and state, and proposing specific measures against what they considered to be privileges of the Catholic Church: among others, the revocation of the concordat with the Holy See, the suppression of religion classes in public schools, the prohibition of the presence of religious symbols in official acts, and the “devolution” of the Mosque of Cordoba to “the people.”48 Certainly, some of those themes are worth being seriously discussed. However, from a legal perspective, such claims can be perplexing when simplistically presented as axioms or pre-conditions for a truly secular democracy, especially because what they describe as “privileges” are in reality rules or i­nstitutions 45

In those statements, some of the people most involved in the organization of the atheist procession insisted that the element of offense of provocation was “consubstantial” to the event. They also explained it was intentionally included in the itinerary a square in which a Catholic church was burned out by the mob during the Second Republic revolts, and referred to some obscene representations in mockery of the Virgin that took place during some demonstrations in the 1980s (such as “floats,” built as parodic resemblance of religious figures, with titles such as “The Fraternity of the Virgin of the Very Cunt”). 46 In other words, the reference to “opening a debate on atheism” looked as a pretext to stir a conflict about the spontaneous presence of Catholic religion in some areas of public life. It is significant that one of the judges that wrote a dissenting opinion to the 2011 judgment did not express this time any objection. 47 The text of the claim for protection (recurso de amparo) is available at: http://ateos.org/ wp-content/uploads/Recurso-de-amparo-mani-2014.pdf (accessed 21/07/2016). 48 See http://www.ateosdemadrid.org/?p=489 (accessed 21/07/2016).

SPAIN: THE UNCERTAIN FUTURE OF ORGANIZED ATHEISM IN SPAIN

301

conceived as protection of, or cooperation with, religious freedom, which are common in many Western democratic societies. Thus, the Catholic concordat has an equivalent juridical figure in the cooperation agreements between state and religions, introduced by the 1980 Organic Law on Religious Freedom to implement the principle and mandate of cooperation established by Art. 16.3 of the Spanish Constitution. This principle is in turn consistent with Art. 9.2 of the Constitution, which provides that public authorities must promote the con­ ditions to ensure that fundamental freedoms can be really and effectively exercised by individuals and groups. So far three agreements have been signed, with the Evangelical, Jewish and Islamic federations, respectively, and the possibility of such agreements is in principle open to all religious communities that had been recognized as having “well-known roots” in Spain.49 Similarly, religious instruction in public schools is not circumscribed to Catholic religion but its possibility is extended to the doctrines of those religions that have signed a cooperation agreement with the state (to date, Protestantism, Judaism, and Islam); moreover, such instruction is always optional – never compulsory – understood as a way of implementing the constitutional rights of parents to ensure that “their children receive a religious and moral instruction in accordance with their beliefs” (Art. 27.3 of the Spanish Constitution).50 With respect to religious symbols in public ceremonies, according to Spanish law no person can be obliged to make any statement, direct or indirect, about his religion or belief (Art. 16.2 of the Spanish Constitution); and, when taking possession of a public office, every person is given the choice between declaring his loyalty to the Constitution in the form of a religious oath or a “promise on his own conscience and honor;” normally, the first option is done in the presence of a religious symbol and the second one in the presence of a copy of the Constitution.51 Finally, the reference to the “devolution” of the MosqueCathedral of Cordoba to the people sounds as ridiculous as it is. What was formerly a Muslim mosque has been owned by the Catholic Church and used as a Catholic temple for almost eight uninterrupted centuries. In the 16th century, a Renaissance cathedral was built in the heart of the huge mosque, while preserving most of its original structure and ornamentation. The Mosque-­ Cathedral of Cordoba, thus, constitutes a unique case of symbiosis between 49

50 51

The political practice in this respect, however, has been quite disappointing and not respectful of the equality principle in the last two decades. See, for further explanation and references, Javier Martínez-Torrón, Religion and Law in Spain, cited in note 42, paras. 300–303. See ibid., paras. 509 et seq. See ibid., paras. 234 et seq.

302

Martínez-Torrón AND MESEGUER VELASCO

Christian, Muslim, Visigothic and Roman elements;52 a stunning wonder included among the unesco world heritage sites.53 The acts aimed at sabotaging the 2011 World Youth Day in Madrid also generated some litigation but this time in the opposite direction. In particular, a private Catholic association filed a criminal lawsuit against one of the organizations involved: an anarchist union, cnt, which had developed an internet and media campaign against the Catholic Church with the occasion of the visit of Pope Benedict xvi to Spain for the World Youth Day. The Catholic association alleged the blatantly aggressive and offensive nature of the campaign, which among other things used cartoons, for example, linking the figure of Benedict xvi with the Nazi regime, representing the silhouette of a hanged bishop and a burning church, depicting a man defecating on a representation of God Father, and a photo montage with the contour of the Pope within a rifle telescopic sight and the slogan “totus muertos” (playing with the Latin words of a well-known slogan of Pope John Paul ii, totus tuus, and meaning “all dead”). The plaintiff argued that the campaign not only was insulting and offensive for the feelings of Catholics but it also was constitutive of hate speech.54 In Spain, anti-religious hate speech is a crime under the Criminal Code – i.e., language provoking discrimination, hatred or violence on the ground of religion or belief, among others (Art. 510) – and the same code punishes as a crime the public scorn of a religion or the people who profess it, as well as of people that do not profess any religion (Art. 525).55 In 2013, the Provincial Court of Madrid dismissed the appeal, holding that the expressions used in the campaign, irrespective of how repulsive or irreverent they could be, constituted no more than criticism towards the Catholic Church and its institutions, and should be deemed a legitimate exercise of freedom of expression.56

52

53

54 55 56

The Muslims, when building the first part of the great mosque, used architectural elements from Visigothic Christian churches – it was actually built upon a Visigothic basilica – which in turn had used materials from former Roman temples. Currently, Muslim ornamentation is intermingled with subsequent Christian symbols, as well as with previous Roman or Visigothic human or animal figures (for instance, in the capitals of the columns). We must note, incidentally, that Cordoba is the hometown of one of the co-authors of this paper, Javier Martínez-Torrón. This helps explain the enthusiastic reference to the mosque-cathedral. The complete text of the lawsuit is available in: http://laicismo.org/data/docs/archivo_774.pdf (accessed 21/07/2016). See Javier Martínez-Torrón, Religion and Law in Spain, cited in note 42, paras. 477 et seq. See Provincial Court of Madrid, sap Madrid, Section 30, Auto N° 73/2013, 24 January 2013.

SPAIN: THE UNCERTAIN FUTURE OF ORGANIZED ATHEISM IN SPAIN

303

13.4.3 Litigation about Religious Symbols in Public Places In addition to the foregoing, in recent years Spanish courts have adjudicated on claims brought up by atheists or atheistic organizations against the displaying of religious symbols in public places. Some of these cases deserve being mentioned in this paper. As in other European countries, in Spain Christian symbols are often visible in the public space or even in some public institutions, out of a long-standing tradition. Sometimes these claims have been presented formally as individual objections inspired by a “secular conscience” (conciencia laica), arguing that the freedom of conscience of atheists was violated by having to bear the presence of a religious symbol that they considered offensive toward their convictions. Actually, however, rather than being the result of an “injured conscience,” most of these judicial claims were apparently driven by the plaintiffs’ interest in obtaining from the courts a particular interpretation of the consequences of the constitutional principle of state neutrality vis-à-vis certain popular and old expressions of Christian religiosity. In the educational environment there was a case that attracted considerable media attention and was decided by a judgment of the Superior Court of Castile and León in 2009.57 The case originated in a complaint about the crucifixes that hung on the classrooms of a public school in Valladolid. A cultural association of atheistic orientation, following the unsuccessful request of some students’ parents to the school board, demanded that the crucifixes be removed from the classes and all common spaces of the school. The court of first instance decided in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered the immediate removal of all the crucifixes, on the ground that the display of religious symbols in an educational center could generate in young students the “feeling” that the state was “closer” to the Christian religions than to other worldviews.58 On appeal, the Superior Court of the region overruled ‘partially’ the first instance decision. On the one hand, the Court rejected any maximalist or extreme interpretation of the constitutional principle of secularity (laicidad) that led to erasing all traces of religion from public life. On the other hand, the Court held that state neutrality obliged to take away from school those religious symbols whose presence could be “emotionally perturbing” for students and contrary to the parents’ rights to have their children educated in accordance with their convictions. As a consequence, in a sort of Solomonic judgment, the Court 57 58

See Superior Court of Castilla y León, stsj Castilla y León 3250/2009 (Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección 3ª), December 14, 2009. See First Instance Administrative Court, Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo N° 2 of Valladolid, Judgment N° 288/2008, November 14, 2008.

304

Martínez-Torrón AND MESEGUER VELASCO

d­ ecreed that crucifixes should be removed only from the school common areas and from those classrooms attended by students whose parents had explicitly complained about their presence; but they could remain in the rest of the rooms if the school board so determined. It is interesting to note that the Superior Court’s judgment was adopted in the light of the chamber judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Lautsi case, which held that the display of the Catholic crucifix in a public school violated Art. 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Indeed, the Superior Court’s judgment can be read as mitigating the effects of Lautsi, which it considered a binding authority. The Grand Chamber Lautsi decision, which held just the opposite and overruled the chamber’s decision, was still to arrive.59 Had the Lautsi Grand Chamber already been rendered, it is not unrealistic to conjecture that the Superior Court might have decided differently. Out of the school environment, the presence of the crucifix in a public space, and more precisely in the city hall of Saragossa, originated another interesting case widely spread by the media at the time. A group of left-wing councilmen demanded that the mayor order the removal of an old crucifix from the plenary hall, where the city council meetings were usually held. The mayor, of the Socialist Party,60 refused to remove the crucifix, making reference to its historical and artistic value as well as to the significance of respect for traditions – that particular crucifix was linked to the life of the Saragossa’s city council since the seventeenth century. The issue was put to a vote and the majority of the council decided in favor of keeping the crucifix. A court of first instance reviewed the case on judicial appeal and confirmed in 2010 the legitimacy of the council’s decision.61 Interestingly, the court analyzed the issue from the perspective of judicial self-restraint. For the court, the right question was not how or if the council could justify the display of a historic crucifix in the plenary hall but, on the contrary, to elucidate if there was any reason why a court must prohibit the 59

The case of Lautsi v. Italy, November 3, 2009 (chamber’s judgment) and March 18, 2011, (Grand Chamber’s judgment), originated in the application of the mother of two students of a public school in Italy, where the law provides that the crucifix must be displayed on the walls of the classrooms of all public schools. See, for an analysis of those judgments, with further bibliographical references, Javier Martínez-Torrón, “Institutional religious symbols, state neutrality and protection of minorities in Europe,” 171 Law & Justice (2013), especially pp. 32 et seq. 60 He was the same mayor that intervened in the atheist bus campaign. See supra, note 12 and accompanying text. 61 See First Instance Administrative Court of Saragossa, Juzgado de lo ContenciosoAdministrativo Nr. 3 of Saragossa, Judgment N° 156/10, 30 April 2010.

SPAIN: THE UNCERTAIN FUTURE OF ORGANIZED ATHEISM IN SPAIN

305

council from having that crucifix in its plenary hall. The court did not find any reason for the prohibition, considering that the constitutional principle of secularity does not entail erasing the visibility of religion from public life, and noting that the display of the crucifix was not aimed at imposing a particular religion over other religions or beliefs – it simply reflected the history of a city council more than nine centuries old. In addition, the court pointed out that this case was not comparable to the display of symbols in public schools, because neither the protection of minors nor the parents’ rights over the education of their children were at issue. An analogous position was adopted by the Superior Court of Justice of Valencia in 2011,62 when it refused to decree the removal of a huge cross placed on a mountain since the eighteenth century and rebuilt several times by popular initiative. The Court declared: in our country, as in many others of similar cultural and religious traditions […], there is a visible presence of religious symbols in public places […]; their maintenance is just a manifestation of respect for those traditions and not an imposition of particular religious beliefs, and therefore they cannot be understood as expressing intolerance of non-believers. The foregoing judgments of Spanish courts are consistent with the case law of the Constitutional Court, which has been very open to the maintenance of religious traditions in public places or institutions, and at the same time very firm in proclaiming that no person can be obliged to take an active part in those traditions.63 13.5

Concluding Remarks: Does Organized Atheism have a Future in Spain?

If we have to judge an initiative by its results, the atheist bus campaign in Spain was not successful. As indicated above, it produced only ephemeral and limited reactions and it did not raise a special interest either in the general public or in the scholarly community. If the intention of its organizers was to stimulate 62 63

See Superior Court of Justice of Valencia, stsj Valencia 648/2011 (Sala de lo ContenciosoAdministrativo, Sección 5ª), 6 September 2011. See, for further details and references, Javier Martínez-Torrón, Religion and Law in Spain, cited in note 42, paras., 220–221.

306

Martínez-Torrón AND MESEGUER VELASCO

a debate on atheism, religion and society, the outcome has been rather poor, to put it in optimistic terms. Looking beyond the bus campaign and its consequences, we can observe that the future of organized atheism in Spain faces some substantial difficulties, at least if it keeps the militant character with which it has been conceived to date. These difficulties certainly do not come from the lack of atheists in the country. The monthly surveys conducted by the Center of Sociological Research in 201464 show that approximately 25 percent of the Spanish population identify themselves either as non-believer (understood likely as synonymous with agnostic) or atheist (roughly speaking, between 14 percent and 16 percent are non-believers, and between 8 percent and 10 percent are atheists, depending on the months). The first problem is probably the lack of representation of atheist organizations in Spain. They present themselves to the public as representing the increasing number of atheists and agnostics existing in Spain, but this is an untrue claim. Most atheists and agnostics do not feel represented by those organizations as proved by the lack of support of their initiatives when we look at the numbers both in absolute and in comparative terms. Indeed, atheist unions in Spain are often looked at with perplexity, for many people think – apparently with good reason – that they are obsessed with religion, which is normally not a matter of much concern to most atheists and agnostics. Moreover, the lack of representativeness of atheist organizations is likely a sign of a deeper problem, which is their lack of a substantial content and identity from the perspective of ideological doctrine. They do not share a ‘properly’ common doctrine with a significant percentage of atheists. This is easily understandable, for, when we say ‘atheism’, we do not say much. It is like saying ‘religion’. Atheism and religion are merely starting points with very reduced substantial content per se; they just indicate a methodological departure from the existence or non-existence of God, respectively (reached by reasoning or by faith), in order to develop a more detailed set of tenets or beliefs. When we refer to religion in general, we use an abstract concept but we actually link 64 The Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas (cis) is a public and apolitical institution that, among other things, publishes monthly “barometers” – surveys conducted among a selection of about 2,500 people, which try to reflect the attitudes of Spanish society with respect to some issues considered of particular significance. Some of the questions in these surveys refer to religious identity and practice. This is perhaps the most reliable instrument to know the religious map of the country, for in Spain there are not official statistics concerning religious membership or affiliation. Those barometers are available in: http://www.cis.es/cis/opencm/ES/11_barometros/index.jsp (accessed 21/07/2016).

SPAIN: THE UNCERTAIN FUTURE OF ORGANIZED ATHEISM IN SPAIN

307

it to particular religions with an identifiable set of doctrines and institutions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Mormonism, etc.). This does not occur with atheism, which is for the most part an individual and nonstructured phenomenon.65 In reality, an organization that defines itself just as an atheist union and claims to represent atheists is as difficult to conceive as a church that would claim to represent all religious believers. Therefore, it is no surprise that atheist unions do not have the social impact they desire. For the same reasons, it is very unlikely that, as they are currently conceived in Spain, atheist organizations may constitute an alternative to religions. They often request a legal treatment similar to churches or religious communities, alleging that they are belief groups, but this seems to be inconsistent, as they present themselves as non-believers or ‘secular’ people. In fact, the secularism of atheist organizations constitutes apparently their only substantial content and identity. But secularism is not a belief that can be compared to religions or other beliefs. The substantive message of secularism is not a belief but a view on the role of religion in society, the way the law should regulate religion in the public space, how the relations between state and religion should be articulated, etc. Secularism is perfectly legitimate but is not a belief; it is a political position that must be rationally articulated. Moreover, in reality there is not only one secularism but various secular understandings of how relations between state, religion and society should be appropriately developed, departing from an axiom: the separation between state and religion. Atheists do not have a uniform secular positioning, and many religious believers hold a secular position, sometimes a radically separationist one. In other words, secularism – including the strict separationist secularism preached by atheist unions – operates on a different plane than religions or beliefs: the plane of political opinions (protected by freedom of expression, association and assembly, Arts. 10 and 11 echr) and not the plane of beliefs (protected by freedom of thought, conscience and religion, Art. 9 echr).66 Secularism belongs in the area of political reason and consequently must be expressed and articulated in rational terms – the power of persuasion of its 65

66

There are, of course, atheistic worldviews with a philosophical coherent content, as for instance Marxism or nihilism, but they do not have originated organized groups or institutions, just inspired – sometimes – political regimes (which have not always left happy memories in mankind). Unfortunately, the European Court of Human Rights has made the mistake of assuming that there is only one secularism – without defining it – and explicitly considering it a belief for the purposes of the protection offered by art. 9 echr (see, for instance, Lautsi v. Italy (Grand Chamber), March 18, 2011, para. 58).

308

Martínez-Torrón AND MESEGUER VELASCO

proposals will depend on the reasons supporting them. On the contrary, religions and beliefs belong in a different world, one that cannot be rationally demonstrated – which does not mean that religions and beliefs should not be expressed and articulated in reasonable terms, especially when they operate in the public space. This leads us to consider another point that is commonplace in the discourse of atheist organizations: the distinction between believers and nonbelievers, with the implicit (or explicit) attachment of the latter to the realm of reason and the former to the realm of non-rational belief or superstition. This distinction is very debatable and most likely inaccurate. In our opinion, the most important questions that concern human beings are not susceptible to a scientific or strictly rational approach. At the end of the day, we all have to structure our lives by believing in something that we cannot scientifically demonstrate. Both theistic and atheistic attitudes have their reasons; none of them have the monopoly on reason or the truth; and both of them admit degrees of rationality and irrationality. Depicting religious believers as irrational, superstitious or intellectually underdeveloped people – as atheist organizations often do in Spain – is certainly an unfair depiction. Atheism, as well as the development and role of atheistic convictions in contemporary societies, are serious issues that deserve a serious analysis and pose serious intellectual challenges, together with other recent phenomena relating to religious beliefs and practices.67 The way chosen by atheist organizations in Spain – provocation – is probably not the most adequate way to deal with those issues, and it does not help favor their cause either. Antireligious obsessive aggressiveness does not generate an intellectual debate; it just stirs emotions (in favor or against religion and atheism) and in fact it produces more antipathy than sympathy, even among thoughtful atheists and agnostics, who see their worldviews reduced to an unrecognizable caricature. In these conditions, has organized atheism a future in Spain? We have many doubts about it, at least if atheist unions do not change their strategy, their aggressive attitude against religion and religious people, and even their own identity. As indicated before, ‘atheism’ is, per se, a word almost empty of substantive content – it is just a methodological departure point. The first thing 67

For instance, the phenomenon that the British sociologist Grace Davie has named “­vicarious religion,” which is generating an increasing scholarly literature (see Grace Davie, “Vicarious Religion: A Methodological Challenge,” in Nancy T. Ammerman (ed.), Everyday Religion: Observing Modern Religious Lives, New York: Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 21–35).

SPAIN: THE UNCERTAIN FUTURE OF ORGANIZED ATHEISM IN SPAIN

309

that atheist unions should do to consolidate in Spain is probably to define themselves in substantial and positive terms, instead of circumscribing their activity to the attack on religion (in particular Catholicism). That would perhaps require an open recognition of their true identity, which pivots around radical secularism. They are not belief communities comparable to religion, but organizations, or lobbies, which stand up for a particular way of understanding relations between religion, state and the public space. Their position is a perfectly legitimate one, but not a belief that can be presented as an alternative to traditional or new religions. As far as atheist unions insisting on appearing as a “counter-religion,” and in expressing contempt for the religious positioning of other citizens, it is difficult to see any optimistic future for the cause of organized atheism in Spain, for many people think that they do not have anything positive to contribute to society. References Amorós, José J. 1984. La libertad religiosa en la Constitución española de 1978. Tecnos: Madrid. Aréchaga, Ignacio. 2008. “Cuando los ateos se lanzan a predicar.” Aceprensa . Available at https://www.aceprensa.com/articles/print/id/15559/ (accessed July 21, 2016). Dawkins, Richard. 2006. The God Delusion. Madrid: Bantam Books. Davie, Grace. 2006. “Vicarious Religion: A Methodological Challenge.” Nancy T. Ammerman (ed.), Everyday Religion: Observing Modern Religious Lives, New York: Oxford University Press, 21–35. Dennett, Daniel. 2007. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. Madrid: Viking. First Instance Administrative Court of Saragossa. April 30, 2010. Juzgado de lo Contencioso- Administrativo Nr. 3 of Saragossa, Judgment N° 156/10. First Instance Administrative Court. November 14, 2008. Juzgado de lo ContenciosoAdministrativo N° 2 of Valladolid, Judgment N° 288/2008. Harris, Sam. 2007. The End of Faith. Madrid: W. W. Norton & Company. Hitchens, Christopher. 2009. God Does Not Exist. Barcelona: Random House Mondadori. Martínez-Torrón, Javier. 2013. “Institutional religious symbols, state neutrality and protection of minorities in Europe.” Law & Justice, 171. Martínez-Torrón, Javier. 2014. Religion and Law in Spain. Wolters-Kluwer, International Encyclopaedia of Laws: The Netherlands. Martínez-Torrón, Javier. 1999. Religión, derecho y sociedad. Comares: Granada.

310

Martínez-Torrón AND MESEGUER VELASCO

Meseguer, Juan. 2010. “Ateos militantes, un movimiento con poca gracia.” Aceprensa. Available at https://www.aceprensa.com/articles/ateos-militantes-un-movimiento -con-poca- gracia (accessed July 21, 2016). Navarro-Valls, Rafael, Joaquín Mantecón & Javier Martínez-Torrón (coords.). 2009. “­Religious freedom and its legal regulation: the Organic Law on Religious Freedom.” Iustel: Madrid. Sherine, Ariane. 2008. “Atheists – gimme five.” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian .com/commentisfree/2008/jun/20/transport.religion (accessed July 21, 2016). Superior Court of Castilla y León, STSJ Castilla y León 3250/2009 (Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección 3ª), December 14, 2009. Superior Court of Justice of Valencia, STSJ Valencia 648/2011 (Sala de lo ContenciosoAdministrativo, Sección 5ª). September 6, 2011. Velasco, Silvia Meseguer. 2010. “Appraisal of the reformed system for financing the catholic church in Spain one year on form its implementation.” Michaela Moravčíková and Eleonóra Valová (eds.), Financing of churches and religious societies in the 21st century. Institute for State-Church Relations: Bratislava, pp. 241–250. Velasco, Silvia Meseguer. 2010. “A propósito de la reforma del sistema de asignación tributaria: hacia el sostenimiento económico de las confesiones religiosas”, 22 ­Revista General de Derecho Canónico y Derecho Eclesiástico del Estado. Viladrich, Pedro J. 1982. “Ateísmo y libertad religiosa en la Constitución española.” 22 Ius Canonicum, pp. 31–86. Voltà, Gabriel García and Joan Carles Marset. 2009. Probablemente Dios no existe. Barcelona: Del bronce.

chapter 14

Sweden: Criticizing Religion in ‘The World’s Most Secular Country’ Magnus Hedelind In Sweden the atheist ad campaign was created by the Swedish Humanist Association (sha) The organization was founded as the Human-Ethical Association (Human-Etiska Förbundet,) in 1979, but changed the name in 1999 to the Humanists (Humanisterna). In English they use the official name Swedish Humanist Association and they have been a member of the International Humanist and Ethical Union since 1984. The vast majority of the academic material written about the Swedish Humanist Association in Sweden has been published after the campaign, which increased the visibility of the organization in the public sphere. These studies have been conducted against the background of a perceived Islamophobic trend in Sweden and it has been discussed whether the Swedish Humanist Association has become racist, or if they legitimize racist ideas within society by ‘othering’ Islam and Muslims.1,2 As will be shown below, the same view was underscored in the media response to the campaign as well, and the Swedish Humanist Association were compared to the Sweden Democrats; a culturally conservative populist party with strong opinions concerning the place (if any place at all) of Islam in Swedish society and culture.3 These links will be further examined in this chapter. This chapter, based on an indepth analysis of the “There’s probably no God” advertising campaign announced by the Swedish Humanist Association in 2009, will examine, (1) the intended purpose of the campaign; (2) how it was constructed, and; (3) how the campaign was received by the press. From this examination I will identify two themes, which will be discussed at the conclusion of this chapter. The two themes are: (1) the way the Swedish Humanist Association are trying to normalize and institutionalize themselves in society through

1 Gerle, 2010; Hagevi, 2010; Olsson and Sorgenfrei, 2011. 2 I am currently writing my PhD-thesis about the Swedish Humanist Association. 3 Hellström, 2010, 52; Gardell, 2011, 228.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004328532_015

312

HEDELIND

discursive tactics, and; (2) why the organization was compared to the Sweden Democrats and the humanist’s response to this comparison. I primarily use three types of empirical data. When talking about the Swedish Humanist Association (henceforth sha) I will use member magazines and other official texts related to the organization. When talking about the “There’s probably no God” campaign I use textual material produced by the sha as part of the campaign: billboards, newspaper articles, the online domain “gudfinnsnoginte,” and to some degree interviews with the chairman of the sha. When talking about the societal reception of the campaign I use articles from newspapers which I contextualize by explaining the public discourse and relevant ­discussions at the time of the campaign. 14.1

Secular Sweden and Islam

One often finds, within both popular debate and societal studies during the 21st century, that Sweden is described as one of “the most secular countries in the world,”4 often due to the perceived clear separation between faith communities and the state and because of the low adherence to Church-associated beliefs by the Swedes.5 But the religious situation in Sweden is at the same time described by others as “complex” or “paradoxical” because such a high percentage of the population are still members of organized religions6 and participate in religious ceremonies such as baptisms, weddings and funerals. Others even talk about a process of de-secularization: “partly because of migration during the last decades.”7 Sweden, according to this view, has evolved a multi-confessional identity since the 1970’s: As a sequel to immigration into Sweden, religion has gained a new kind of visibility in the Swedish society. This is demonstrated through newly built mosques (with minarets), religiously articulated dressing codes, celebration of Ramadan, and increasingly, the founding of schools with 4 For example, Jäntrerä-Jareborg, 2010, 669; sou 2009:52, 86; Petterson, 2008, 34–38, Pettersson, 2009, 242; see also Zuckerman, 2010, and Tomasson, 2002. 5 I will try to show how this popular understanding of “Secular Sweden” at the same time is both strengthening and weakening the legitimacy of the sha. 6 70 percent are members of Church of Sweden (the national Lutheran church) and additionally 9 percent is part of other congregations: Muslim, Catholic, Buddhist, and different free churches (Pettersson, 2009, 119). 7 sou 2009:52, 82.

SWEDEN: RELIGIOUS CRITIQUE IN THE ‘WORLD’S MOST SECULAR COUNTRY’ 313

religious curriculum. Much of the visibility of religion in Sweden, then, is due to Islam´s new presence in the country.8 The growth of Islam, but also the “growing private religiosity and new spiritualties,”9 are seen as factors in Sweden´s de-secularization. But while the new spiritualties are mainly perceived as part of private consumerism,10 Islam “challenges the majority society´s understanding of the role of religion and neutrality in respect of confession.”11,12 Muslims have come to be singled out among the religious communities in Sweden as different in relation to the more secularized Lutheran tradition13 but there is no proof for a growing general antipathy towards Islam among the Swedish population during the 21st century.14 New organized voices in the public sphere, however, have started to problematize the presence of Islam, or Muslim cultural practices, in Sweden during the last ten to fifteen years. Two of these are the Sweden Democrats and the sha;15 the former is characterized by a culturally conservative ideology and the latter by a secularist ideology. The understanding of a growing population of religious Muslims in the country has resulted in a politicized and polarized discussion about Swedish culture or secularity and Islam, concerning topics such as veiling, circumcision, halal-meat and the building of mosques,16 sometimes with clearly Islamophobic rhetoric announcing Islam as incompatible with a modern society and liberal values.17 One could say that both organizations discuss the same topic, Muslim culture, but from different positions. Among the critics of the “There’s probably no God” campaign, one of the main questions was how to understand the relationship between sha and the Sweden Democrats.

8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17

Jänterä-Jareborg, 2010, 670. sou 2009:52, 82. Brodin, 2001. Jänterä-Jareborg, 2011, 670. From a sociological point of view there is many signs of secularization in Sweden (which I have referred to above) but there is still an understanding among sociological researchers that this process not is linear (from religious to nonreligious) and that religion not simply is disappearing but rather changing. People seem to become “religious in their own way” (Bäckström, 2004). Svanberg and Westerlund, 1999, 24. Gardell, 2010, 224. Olsson and Sorgenfrei, 2011, 2. Svanberg and Westerlund, 1999, 24. Gardell, 2010, 123.

314 14.2

HEDELIND

The Swedish Humanist Association

Sweden had a wide-ranging critical debate about religion during the middle of the 20th century and after that the interest in these kind of questions have faded and are today still perceived as low.18 The empiricist philosopher Ingemar Hedenius (1908–1982) was invited by the editor-in-chief of one of the major daily newspapers, Dagens Nyheter, to open a public debate about religion in Sweden during the early 1950s and he had soon managed to generate a highly critical public attitude towards Christianity, and religious faith, especially among the educated.19 Through his attacks on Christian irrationality and the clerical order, Hedenius wanted to reshape the old Swedish cultural identity and make people aware of their non-attachment to the Church and its faith articles.20 These developments proceeded simultaneously with a political debate promoting separation of church and state, conducted mainly by the political left.21 The process of separation began in 1958 but the general interest in practicing, debating and criticizing religion faded during the 1970s and the attention among the other political parties concerning church/state relations was low, so the process was slow and the final separation of church and state did not occur until the year 2000.22 The declining interest in debating religion and the low interest among the political parties concerning the church/state question during the later parts of the 20th century are in all likelihood the main reasons why the sha came to be established in 1979: they wanted to bring the critical debate about religion back into the public and political agenda. The organization did not attract many members and had no real social impact during the period of 1980–2000. The sha ideology was mainly based on Hedenius’ philosophical freethinking tradition and Norwegian ceremonial humanism. It´s main political intent was to promote the separation of church and state and to become a secular social and ceremonial alternative to the Church. Since the early 1990s there has been an ongoing project within the association to develop “secular ceremonies,” such as baptisms, weddings and funerals. The goal has been to create alternatives to the Church that solemnize important life-happenings, possibly 18 19 20 21 22

Zuckerman, 2012, 12. Martinson, 2012, 77. Martinson, 2012, 78. Heinö, Andreas Johansson Har religionen blivit vänster? De svenska partierna och religionsfrågorna. Scandbook, Falun 2013, 18. After the separation the state still affirmed the Church a “semi-official role both as stateregulated institution and as a religious organization,” because of the historical role of the Church in Sweden (Jänterä-Jareborg, 2010, 7). sha have been working with promoting a “factual separation” concerning such areas as the relationship between church and schools, church and the royal family, church and official political ceremonies, etc.

SWEDEN: RELIGIOUS CRITIQUE IN THE ‘WORLD’S MOST SECULAR COUNTRY’ 315

leading to a termination of people´s connection to the Church and the opening of a gate into the secular humanist movement. However, it has proven hard to reach out and get Swedes to become interested in the sha as an alternative to the Church.23 I find that the secular humanist ideology of the sha includes three main dimensions of ‘secularity’: ‘state secularity’, ‘societal secularity’ and ‘human secularity’. Within this scheme, the term ‘secularization’ becomes a symptom of, (1) an advanced and democratic state and society, and; (2) of an evolved population, who have become liberalized from primitive group affiliations and developed into independent, rational moral subjects within the legal borders of the (secular) nation state. This idea of the ‘secular’ only becomes understandable in relation to its anti-thesis, i.e. ‘religion’ or the ‘religious’ which in this ideology acquires the meaning of anti-freedom, falsehood, irrationality and perhaps even darker aspects such as violence and abuse.24 One of the clear differences between the Hedenius debate and the secularist discourse of the sha during the 21st century is the target of the critique. The Swedish Church has remained a central antagonist for the organization until this day, but pseudoscience, new spiritualties, religious free schools, multiculturalism, Islam, honor violence and, not least, the way that the state relates to religion (such as the place of religion in the school system) have all become prominent areas of attention. The sha does not have an outspoken agenda to put explicit focus upon Islam (in the way that the Sweden Democrats do) but as a numerically growing religion in Sweden they acknowledge it as an area of concern. The political work of the sha is primarily based on debating what they understand to be the detrimental effects of religion and trying to create secular change through opinion-making in the media and influencing political decisions. In short, the sha could be described as liberal anti-relativists trying to reduce tolerance for religious practices (which are understood within the organization to be anti-liberal, anti-secular and violating human rights) while at the same time putting up a fight against, what they describe as, philosophical postmodernism and normative multiculturalism.25 Its message 23

24 25

The main inspiration has been the Norwegian Human-Etisk Forbond, the organization who the humanists originally took their name from and who has helped the Swedish organization both economically, informatively and morally during the years. During the fall of 2014 they sponsored a new media campaign by the sha (Congress, 2014). Casanova, 2011, 68. Within the sha multiculturalism is mainly understood as an ideology concerned with cultural and value relativism which hinders the liberalization of religious and cultural traditions in society and by this allows the preservation of harmful traditional norms and values (Buhn and Demirbag-Sten, 2010). They make a difference between “multicultural society” as a social fact and “multiculturalism” as a culture relativist ideology and there outspoken agenda is only to combat the later.

316

HEDELIND

was to b­ ecome popular, and during the years 2000–2010 the organization grew from 600 to nearly 6000 members.26 This growth could be explained by the increased media presence of the organization from 2005 onwards due to the effort of I­T-entrepreneur Christer Sturmark who became the new chairman responsible for communication and promotion, and the attention aroused by the “There’s probably no God” campaign.27 Sturmark’s ambition as chairman was, in his own words, to turn the organization from a “philosophical discussion club” into a “political force,” and one important tactic of this reform was to make the organization visible through media and advertisement.28 The “There’s probably no God” campaign was the biggest and costliest advertisement project for the organization to date, and when it hit the streets and subways in 2009 it was part of the sha’s overall strategy to become more visible and raise awareness about the increasing impact of religion in everyday life.29 Still, after the campaign and all of the media exposure, the sha did not become a well-known organization in Sweden, but I would suggest that the association became so in milieus composed of active Christians.30 14.3

The Purpose of the Campaign

Sturmark made a three-point explanation of the purpose of the campaign in the sha member magazine Humanisten. According to Sturmark, the campaign should draw attention to the following points: Religion affects our everyday life and politics more then we think. Ethical and existential questions are too important to be handled exclusively by religious people. 26 27

28 29 30

The numbers then went down to 4500 in 2014 (Congress, 2014). In 2006 Sturmark published Tro och Vetande 2.0 in which he presented a Swedish humanism through references to the Swedish philosopher Ingemar Hedenius. From 2007 Sturmark is also the publishing manager of Fri Tanke Förlag (Free-thought Publishing), a publishing house specializing in popular science, humanist tradition and produce the “enlightenment”-magazine Sans. Sturmark, 2005a, 14. Sturmark, 2014. For example, the Christian newspaper Dagen places Christer Sturmark on the fourth place over the ten people in Sweden that have had the biggest impact upon the debate about Christianity in Sweden during the 21-century (Dagen, 2010-02-19). The sha is here described as “important actors within religious Sweden” because so many renowned Christians choose to take the debate with the organization, even though they have such a low member count (Zetterman, 2012a).

SWEDEN: RELIGIOUS CRITIQUE IN THE ‘WORLD’S MOST SECULAR COUNTRY’ 317

The humanistic movement needs more members and improved economic resources, since the state keeps on discriminating nonreligious life stances in relation to religious life stances.31 The third point refers to the economic conditions for organizations within the Swedish civil society; if a life stance organization does not have the qualifications to be registered as a “faith community” they do not recieve any economic support from the state. The funding system is regulated by the Commission for Government Support to Faith Communities (Nämnden för Statligt Stöd till Trossamfund, sst) and one of the qualifications to be a faith community is to be, “a congregation for religious activity which includes having worship service.”32 These regulations have made it hard for the sha to be included. Since 2000 they have tried various ways to persuade state officials to change the regulations so that nonreligious life stance organizations such as the sha are not neglected.33 They had no success, i.e. state regulations for funding have not changed, and they still finance their work with membership fees and sponsorship. One of the main donors of the secular humanist cause in Sweden, who also funded much of the money for the campaign, is Björn Ulvaeus, the musician best known as former member of abba. Below I will present the campaign in three parts, each part connected with a specific media technology: billboards, internet and newspapers. My focus in this chapter is on a textual level and my theoretical interest is mainly connected to ideological secularism34 and the use of the categories ‘secular’ and ‘religious’ within the “There’s probably no God” campaign. 14.4

The Billboard Campaign

The campaign started on June 8, 2009, and the main media employed was outdoor advertisements in Sweden’s three largest cities, Stockholm, Göteborg, and Malmö. The billboards were also to be found in the Stockholm subway system. Local branches of the sha around the country also put up the posters in their home towns, and distributed flyers announcing the campaign. The billboards portrayed three ‘Swedish flags’ but with different religious signs on them. Against three blue square backgrounds there were large yellow insignias 31 32 33 34

Sturmark, 2009c, nr 2, s 2. sfs 1999:974. Sturmark, 2005b; Sturmark, 2007. Casanova, 2011, 66.

318

HEDELIND

of the three Abrahamic religions: the Star of David, the Muslim crescent, and a Christian cross. The one with the cross is actually a slightly modified version of the Swedish flag turned 90 degrees. Together with the three flags there was a text saying “There’s probably no God,” sometimes with the subtitle; “but he still affects your life.”35 The main text was based on the English original, but the subtitle differed and was supposed to be more ‘serious’ in its implications, pointing to the impact of religion on the individual and societal levels in ways that were not in line with the values of a secular society.36 With the bigger billboards the following text was also included; Less than 20 percent of the Swedish people are religious. But God is still sacred in our country. We, within the Swedish Humanist Association, consider this to be something to think twice about. There are numerous instances where religion affects people’s lives – and not just the lives of the believers, but also the other seven million citizens in the country. How religious are you? And how do you think that society should relate to religion? Try our test on; www.gudfinnsnoginte.se The end of the message led the reader to the online section of the campaign, which I will get back to below. Christer Sturmark was the project manager and planned the outdoor, online, and newspaper parts of the campaign together with the board members of the sha, the British Humanists Association, and an advertisement company. He describes the idea behind the flags as follows: The idea was that the viewer first should recognize two religious insignias, the star and the moon-crescent, representing two religions in Sweden, and then one would see the third flag, the Swedish flag, and realize that there is religious symbol on that flag also. The viewer should then recognize the impact of religion in Sweden; it has even shaped the appearance of the national flag!37 The design was a reminder of the fact that there are several different religions represented in Sweden. In contrast to the way the campaign was conducted in other countries, there was no bus advertisement in Sweden. 35 36 37

In Swedish, “Gud finns nog inte. Ändå påverkar han dig.” Sturmark, 2014. Sturmark, 2014.

SWEDEN: RELIGIOUS CRITIQUE IN THE ‘WORLD’S MOST SECULAR COUNTRY’ 319

14.5

The Online Campaign

The campaign also had a presence online and the domain “gudfinnsnoginte” contains the following description: With the campaign “There’s probably no God” the Swedish Humanist Association want to show the relationship between religion and society, create reflection and contribute to an open debate about the role of religion in modern Sweden. Obviously, our hope is also that a portion of the country’s nonreligious people now takes a clearer position and become members of the Swedish Humanist Association.38 The domain had a web-based survey where the visitor was asked; “How religious are you?” The survey was based on 15 questions about religion, society, morals, personal beliefs, etc. and the viewer with the highest “religious points” was named “very religious” and the viewer with the highest “humanist points” was named “a spot on humanist.” The ones on the middle ground were named either as “religious, but still open minded” or “not so religious.”39 The “very religious” visitors were not asked to leave their faith and become humanists, but they were asked to reflect upon why they, as religious people, should have such a great influence in Swedish society despite the fact that they were such a minority. Exactly in which ways “religious people” were influencing Swedish society was not specified. Neither the “religious, but still open minded” viewer was invited to join the sha, but was asked to donate money. The “spot on humanist” and the “not so religious” individuals were directly invited to join the sha, and the “not so religious” person was told that “perhaps you have been a humanist all along, just not knowing it.” The point of the campaign, apparently, was not to convert religious people, but to inspire non – or “not so” – religious people to make a conscious, or reflexive, decision concerning their own life stances, and with the help of the information provided on the site, come to the point of identifying themselves as humanists and join the organization. Several of the questions only gave the possibility to answer in two ways: in a “religious way” or in a “secular way,” and the “religious” reply was formulated in quite fundamentalist terms. The “religious person” was, for example, positive towards gender inequality, wanted to forbid homosexuality, thought that it was correct to punish women who get an abortion and that the will of God should control our lives (question 12, 13, 14, 15). The test identified these 38 gudfinnsnoginte.se. 39 Ibid.

320

HEDELIND

­ nderstandings as religious values, leaving out all nuances of religiousness. u While answering the questions the user was informed by popup fact-sheets on the screen of the rules and regulations concerning religion and human rights in Sweden and in different countries around the world. These concerned issues such as blasphemy laws in Europe, individual human rights, religious free schools, same-sex marriage, homosexuality and abortion. The fact-sheets outlined the problems that followed when religion begins to dominate liberal/ secular society and individuals; children come to be forbidden to take part in all kinds of school education (such as sports and sexual education), boys become circumcised, children become indoctrinated in religious free schools, homosexuals become discriminated and women die because abortions become prohibited. A debate section was also linked to the survey. The visitor could use it to discuss the different topics of the campaign, and the campaign itself. Some of the subjects were “religious critique and freedom of speech,” “religious traditions and human rights,” “religious organizations and children,” “religion and sexuality,” and “equality and religion.” The different forums were well visited by both defenders and critics of the campaign and they were quite active during the entire year 2009. The forums are still used, but only very sporadically. There was also a Facebook page and a Twitter account designed for the campaign. Today the Facebook page has roughly 23,500 followers, and the twitter account has 211 followers.40 Both are still active, but the updates are sporadic. 14.6

The Campaign in the Newspapers

Together with billboards and the online campaign the sha also published a “secular manifesto” in Sweden’s largest newspaper, Dagens Nyheter, on Midsummer Eve the same year,41 which clarified the organizations views on religion and society. The manifesto stated that the case of Sweden is extraordinary compared to international standards: it proclaimed that most Swedish citizens have the same relationship to religious texts as they have to poetry and fiction. The relation was undogmatic, or secular, and people found that religious myths were more or less evocative stories and not truths for deciding the rules or regulations of life or society. “Undogmatic” is here apparently understood as “nonreligious” and according to the manifesto, no less than 80 percent of the Swedish population was nonreligious. Therefore, according to the manifesto, 40 41

Accessed 09/01-2014. Sturmark, etc, 2009a.

SWEDEN: RELIGIOUS CRITIQUE IN THE ‘WORLD’S MOST SECULAR COUNTRY’ 321

the country´s population had left religion behind but still needed to formulate a personal ethics which was the reason why it was important that they got in touch with the humanist tradition. By doing so they could learn to take responsibility for their own lives, and the lives of their brothers and sisters in Sweden and in other parts of the world. Since Sweden was so secular, the authors found that the country had the opportunity to become a humanist stronghold, but knowledge of the secular humanist perspective first needed to be circulated and understood in society. For this humanist society to become a reality, it was necessary that the state ended the discrimination against nonreligious lifestance organizations, which would “even the odds” between humanism and religion in Sweden. Compared to secular Sweden, the manifesto stated, dogmatic religion was still strong, and in some cases on the rise, in other parts of the world, which ultimately made the humanist cause a global cause. In the manifesto, religion was associated with the compulsion by some people to subordinate to other people´s beliefs and notions of what God (or actually God’s earthly spokesmen) wants: women get stoned to death in accordance to sharia law. Girl schools get demolished by Taliban’s in the name of God. 70000 women die every year from illegal abortions. Those who survive get condemned by the priesthood or thrown in to prison in many catholic countries. In many countries homosexuals get harassed; in some cases they even risk getting executed […] because of this, the fight of the humanist movement is a global one.42 According to the manifesto the main victims of religion were women, children and homosexuals, and on a global scale it was these subordinate groups that could find safety within the regulations of secular individual human rights. At the end of the manifesto the authors returned to discuss their country and pointed out that even in secular Sweden everything was not good and well; even there, human dignity and human rights were being violated through religion, tradition and culture. Because of the way honor was constructed within traditional cultural and religious groups, young girls become subjects of oppression and violence, and young boys were being abused due to the Muslim and Jewish traditions of circumcision. Children were indoctrinated in religious free-schools and religious sentiments blocked medical advancement in stem-cell research and each individual’s right to a dignified death. All of these 42

Sturmark, etc, 2009a.

322

HEDELIND

­violations could continue because the state did not recognize the absolute importance of individual human rights, and because religion, culture and traditions were overrated by law and society at large. The manifesto proclaimed that it was even considered taboo to talk about these things in political debate, which made the humanistic voice even more important. The sha had taken upon themselves the role of guardians of human rights and acted as true critics of all dogmatic religions and traditional cultures. 14.7

Social and Legal Responses

As in the case of the campaign itself, responses to the campaign were mediated in different ways, mainly via articles written in magazines and newspapers as well as comments in online forums, chat rooms and blogs. My description of the reception of the campaign is mainly based on news articles since I believe that these had the biggest impact on the public political debate. I could not find any articles that advocated the ban of the campaign, and since Sweden lacks a blasphemy law,43 this would have been difficult to accomplish. The only alternative would have been to get the campaign recognized as hate speech, but to my knowledge no such attempts were made. One complaint against the campaign came in to the Advertising Ombudsman (Reklamombudsmannen, ro) but it was rejected because the advertising campaign was not commercial, and ro can only deal with commercial advertising and not political or religious messages, which are protected by the Freedom of Press Act and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression.44 In Sweden legal considerations were not prominent in the response to the campaign. The campaign did not create the same stir as the “Hedenius debate” of the 1950s, but it was acknowledged in several newspapers, both national and local, and it has been described as one of the major “debates about religion” in Sweden of the 21st century.45 Searching for “Gud finns nog inte” in the media database Retriever Research46 from January 2009 produced 149 hits, of which 125 were printed in 2009.47 Some of the texts explicitly discuss the campaign, 43 It was abolished in 1949. 44 Mail ro 14/02-14. 45 Dagen, 2010-02-19. 46 The search engine includes all the lager newsmagazines in Sweden, both national and local. 47 Approximately 15 of the 149 articles do not refer to the campaign, but to a book published 2008 with the same name. The newspapers that had most articles that mentioned the

SWEDEN: RELIGIOUS CRITIQUE IN THE ‘WORLD’S MOST SECULAR COUNTRY’ 323

while most of them used the campaign as a reference or a backdrop for raising other questions and issues related to religion or the sha. Some argued that there was an ongoing antireligious trend in Sweden,48 as an example of anti-Muslim propaganda in the West49 or as a proof that the sha’s main focus was to fight religion and not to spread humanist values.50 My focus while discussing the campaign here will be on the three largest newspapers in Sweden: ­Dagens Nyheter, Svenska Dagbladet and Expressen, and I will especially give attention to the “blue and yellow God” debate that followed in Dagens Nyheter after the sha had published their “secular manifesto.” 14.7.1 Social Response: The “Blue and yellow God” Debate After the publication of the “secular manifesto” on June 19, 2009, there was a discussion referred to as the “Blue and yellow God” debate in Dagens Nyheter, which was noticed and picked up in other newspapers, thereby broadening the impact of the article. First I present the critical voices against the campaign and then present more positive views, which are formulated as answers to the critique. Among the respondents of the “There’s probably no God” campaign in the newspapers there were two main areas of critique: the perceived stereotypical construction of religion and the perceived xenophobic subtext of the campaign. Critical voices found the campaign to be antagonistic rather than trying to open up a productive debate, and that it was forcing people into narrow stereotypical categories such as “religious” vs “nonreligious.” The columnist Ola Larsmo wrote that: “The Swedish Humanist Association´s way to lump together all religions as the same expression of superstition obscures our understanding in a way that seems conspiratorial.”51,52 The campaign was thought to reduce all kinds of religions, and all attitudes within these religions, to be the one and same category: ‘religion’, which then could be criticized by the sha. Also Gabriel Itkes Sznap pointed out that the campaign was very “black and white” in its treatment of secularity and religion: “central to the reasoning is the understanding that there are two fundamentally different approaches to the world: at one side the neutral, value free and objective, on the

48 49 50 51 52

campaign was Dagen (12), a Christian newspaper, and two liberal newspapers, Dagens Nyheter (10) and Expressen (9). Vigren, 2010. Zetterman, 2012b. Lilja, 2012. Larsmo, 2009. All citations from the newspapers are my own translations.

324

HEDELIND

other the i­ndoctrinated, corrupt and religious.”53 Larsmo further concluded that religious people were constructed as: “the ‘other’, the ones who are not like me, who don’t believe the way I do.”54 Among the respondents there was a sense that the members of the sha were terribly one-sided in their understanding of religion; they were only interested in, and they only talked about, the bad consequences of religion, and they seemed to connect “bad religion” with “minority religions” in a way that was xenophobic. The columnist Göran Rosenberg presented his main criticism in the article “Blue and yellow God.” Here he declared that it was a problem that there was not more of a reaction toward the campaign in Swedish society. This was problematic, he argued, because it showed that people did not react against the “xenophobic subtext” of the campaign: “What the campaign says more or less openly, and signals with their use of symbols, is that the problem with people who believe that God probably exists […] mainly is a problem with individuals who have a Muslim or Jewish faith.”55 Rosenberg argued that since the sha was quite clear in their campaign materials that it wasn’t the religion of the Church of Sweden that they considered to be the problem, it must be the religious cultures of other groups that were disturbing enough for the organization to make them launch the “million kronor” campaign. In line with the design of the billboard flags, Rosenberg argued that these disapproved religious cultures were those of the Muslims and Jews, and he concluded that: “it’s not hard to see which kind of political forces that will get inspired by the campaign,”56 referring to the Sweden Democrats, known for their hostility against “foreign” religions and cultures within Swedish territory. He then proclaimed that, “until they realize the potentially intolerant outcome of their own propaganda I cannot take seriously the critique that the Swedish Humanist Association puts up against religious intolerance and fundamentalism.”57 He did not think that the organization wanted to promote xenophobia but he thought that the sha should take moral and political responsibility for how their campaign could be understood in society and how it could be used for xenophobic purposes. A similar understanding can be found in several media responses related to Rosenberg’s articles. One of these came from Ola Larsmo who claimed that when he saw the billboard-flags in the subways his first reaction was to ­associate them with the Sweden Democrats. He wrote that he viewed the 53 54 55 56 57

Sznap, Gabriel Itkes 2009-06-30. Larsmo, 2009. Rosenberg, 2009a. Rosenberg, 2009b. Rosenberg, 2009c.

SWEDEN: RELIGIOUS CRITIQUE IN THE ‘WORLD’S MOST SECULAR COUNTRY’ 325

r­ eligious i­ nsignias as disturbing: the yellow David-star resembled the stars Jews had to wear in Nazi Germany and the yellow half-moon on blue background resembled the insignia of the anti-Muslim “Eurabia”-literature.58,59 Theologian Susanne Wigorts Yngvesson also referred to Rosenberg’s article when she wrote: “Göran Rosenberg thinks that the Swedish Humanist Association lays the ground for xenophobic forces in society. I agree,” and continued: The campaign of the Swedish Humanist Association is a problem because they focus on Muslims and Jews by using the David-star and the moon-crescent on their billboards […] it is problematic when religious critics on Dagens Nyheters debate pages – these twelve, white individuals from the establishment60 – want to restrict the multicultural space in which these religions exists. Even though they include rhetoric’s about “reason, compassion and democratic principles” they still appear to use the same language as the Sweden Democrats.61 Yngvesson ends with the same argument as Rosenberg by concluding that: “I don’t think that the Swedish Humanist Association intends to go hand in hand with xenophobic forces, but I still think that they risk doing so. They should therefore reconsider the images of enemies that they construct.”62 Yet another example of this line of thought comes from Ola Wihlke who wrote that: the Sweden Democrats could have come up with the idea of the flags. They also think that Islam has too great an influence, and even creates a threat to Sweden. Their purpose is to stigmatize Muslims as a group, and more generally individuals from countries where Islam has a strong position. To print a Swedish flag with a half-moon and a star in a time when 58 59

Larsmo, 2009. The Eurabia conspiracy-theory states that Europe step by step is being turned into a Muslim territory through secret relations between high leaders from the European Union and the Arab states. The secular legislation and human rights are being replaced by sharia laws, non-Muslims are being silenced by “blasphemy laws” and politically correct media ambassadors, and schools and academia are controlled by the Muslim-lobby. In the Eurabia-design the symbolic meaning of the yellow crescent upon the blue background is the perceived “islamization” of Europe; it represents the way that the European flag will look when Europe has become Muslim (Gardell, 2010, 204). 60 This refers to the “secular manifesto” in Dagens Nyheter which was signed by twelve people. 61 Yngvesson, 2009. 62 Ibid.

326

HEDELIND

right-wing extremism are reaping success all over Europe is not a sign of humanism, rather a desperate call for attention.63 Here the campaign is contextualized in the European political climate, where anti-Muslim nationalist ideologies are gaining in support. One reaction went into a somewhat opposite direction, stating that the campaign design was positive because it portrayed Islam and Judaism as Swedish religions: “to see, side by side, the three great religions in yellow and blue is something positive, besides Christianity there is also ‘blue and yellow’ Judaism and Islam. All these religions are part of Sweden, none of them is portrayed as foreign.”64 This is also the argument which the chairman of the sha, Christer Sturmark, used when he defended the campaign design: Both Yngvesson, Rosenberg and Larsmo make connections between the Swedish Humanist Association and xenophobia. I recently met a young Muslim woman who said that she especially liked one thing about the campaign: “I think that you are wrong – I think that God exists,” she said. “But I appreciate that we Muslims for once gets included in the discussion. You show that also Islam is a Swedish religion” (…) To accuse us for being xenophobic even though we so obviously represent the opposite demonstrates a close to neurotic fear of religious critique.65 The Muslim woman in his story was used as a legitimating witness that Muslims did not feel threatened by the campaign and that the images were not racist. Also the well-known writer (and member of the sha) P.C. Jersild took a stance against the critique by stating that: Both Larsmo and Rosenberg may interpret the flags as they want. The interpretation is in the eye of the beholder. But do they really believe that the Swedish Humanist Association is working for anti-Semitic and islamophobic purposes? I have a hard time believing that they really do think that. We can therefore only explain how we ourselves interpret the pictures: that the Swedish flag wears a Christian cross – even though we

63 64 65

Wihlke, 2009. Ringlander, Blom and Eek, 2009. Sturmark, 2009b.

SWEDEN: RELIGIOUS CRITIQUE IN THE ‘WORLD’S MOST SECULAR COUNTRY’ 327

usually don’t think about it. And that Christianity is far from the only religion in our country today.66 Jersild argued that Sweden now has a diversified religious population, which means that the question of religion in Sweden needs to be reexamined. He then concluded, like Sturmark, that the critique of the campaign is founded in deeper psychological causes connected to either the faith of the respondents (they get angry because their own faith in God is being questioned) or that the respondents believe that religious critiques overall are unjust.67 As also shown in the “secular manifesto” there is an understanding among the members of the sha that there is a cultural taboo in Sweden against being critical of religion and that irreligious people are silenced in public debate. The seemingly greatest frustration for Sturmark was that the critical columnists did not understand what the sha represented, what the worldview or ideology of the organization really was. He found that critics only saw the texts but not the humanist context in which the texts should be understood: The Swedish Humanist Association pursues a secular society where humans with different backgrounds, faiths and cultures will be able to coexist without letting one religion gain precedence before all others. This is the direct opposite compared to the Sweden Democrats, the Islamists and conservative Christians, which all advocate monoculture society based on religious values and one religion’s preference above others. Only a secular society can enable the ideal of a multicultural society.68 In Sturmark’s view it was only when the texts were taken out of the humanist context that they could be misunderstood as racist. In another article he declared: what is it that frightens with the idea of a society where all people have the right to their own faith, without it being elevated to a norm for society at large? A society that affirms a multiform of faiths but that gives people rights as individuals rather than as part of a religious or cultural collective?69

66 Jersild, 2009. 67 Ibid. 68 Sturmark, 2009b. 69 Sturmark, 2009d.

328

HEDELIND

This was the society that he argued the organization aspired to realize, and the problem he identified was that the critics did not understand this fact (or pretended that they did not understand). He thought that the critics, by not recognizing the humanist agenda or life stance as a whole, misinterpreted the campaign as xenophobic. 14.8

Analysis and Summary

When they created the campaign, the sha was of course not ignorant of the fact that the Swedish Church in 2009 had close to seven million members among a population of nine million,70 yet in the campaign Sweden was presented as populated by 80 percent “nonreligious” people. When the numbers seemed to be quite the opposite, how and why did they suggest this interpretation (besides trying to be provocative)? To find an answer I turn to the stated purpose of the campaign. The purpose was to get new members and to question the politics of state funding of life stance organizations. This ‘overstatement’ could therefore be described as a secularist performative action; the sha chose to describe Sweden as “unusually secular” in order to push the secularization of juridical and political systems. They worked to strengthen the notion that Sweden was secular, even the most secular nation in the world, in order to create a public opinion that could influence state officials to stop giving preference to religious organizations. Their position was that if Swedish people did not believe in God and did not care about religious declarations then, in effect, religion should have no influence on state politics and decision making: the state and society should be governed in a secular way. This meant, among other things, that the state should treat all life-stance organizations in the same way and give the sha economic support and also include the organization in interfaith dialogues. One could say that the sha tried to turn the table; in the campaign they characterized the members of the Swedish Church as “nonreligious” and by this sought to appropriate the place of the church as the true life stance organization of the Swedish people. But, to make this possible they had to construct ‘religion’ and ‘being religious’ into something very narrow, something that had to do with superstition, God-given laws, prohibitions, submission, and power abuse. This process was most pronounced in the online survey and the “­secular manifesto” where religion was associated with, (1) the non-Swedish world, and; (2) prohibitions and violations committed towards women, children and 70

Jänträ-Jareborg, 2010, 669.

SWEDEN: RELIGIOUS CRITIQUE IN THE ‘WORLD’S MOST SECULAR COUNTRY’ 329

­homosexuals in the name of God. Non-Swedish religiosity also became a reminder of what could happen in Sweden if the secular project was not kept active by the sha and I find that references to the “religious outside world” was the main way in which the sha managed to legitimate their presence in “Secular Sweden.” An example of this is found in one of the answers that Sturmark gave to the critics of the campaign: Rosenberg seems to think that the impact of religion upon human life is such a small problem that it should not be dealt with in a media campaign. That’s a frighteningly narrow perspective. Tell the women and homosexuals in Iran that religion is not a problem. Tell that to women in Catholic countries such as El Salvador, Brasilia and Nicaragua. Tell that to the children in religious free schools who get taught a distorted conception of reality.71 When he needed to defend the religious critique in the campaign, he immediately pointed to the dangers in the outside world, and in this case to religious free schools whose nationality he did not specify. He also referred to the sha´s membership in the international humanist movement: An argument that’s often heard is that the humanist movement is not needed in a secularized country. One becomes amazed by this provincial thinking. The Swedish Humanist Association is part of a global movement in a world in which ideas about what God wants create tremendous suffering for many people. Shouldn’t Swedish people give support to ­Amnesty, even though our own state does not take political prisoners?72 The International Humanist and Ethical Union were further described as a secularist Amnesty in the “secular manifesto,” seemingly as a way to legitimate the Swedish organization and the secular humanist life stance. By creating a connection to Amnesty, the sha seems legitimate and justified. As shown in the responses, many people found that the construction of ‘religion’ in the campaign was unreflective and overly negative, which, as I have shown, is a consequence of the organization’s secularist ideology.73 They produce a universalistic understanding of ‘religion’ as a phenomenon which exists all over the world in different forms (such as Islam, Christianity, Judaism), and 71 72 73

Sturmark, 2009. Sturmark, 2009b. Casanova, 2011, 66.

330

HEDELIND

has specific characteristics, such as being dogmatic and hostile to women, children, and homosexuals and therefore needs to be critiqued and abandoned. Through this secularist logic the followers of the Swedish Church (which is not understood as ‘dogmatic’), are not perceived as ‘religious’ at all. But even though religion mainly is associated with the outside world, religion in Sweden is also described as a problem. No less than 80 percent of Swedish people are perceived as nonreligious in the campaign, but that still leaves 20 percent of Swedish people who are religious. Among these the campaign paid attention to Muslims, Jews and Christians through the use of the insignia-flags, and this tactic was perceived as xenophobic by several of the columnists that responded to the campaign. The sha was accused of stigmatizing Islam at a time when racist, anti-Muslim ideologies were on the rise in Sweden and Europe and for not taking responsibility for their publicly portrayed materials. This shows that the response to the campaign in Sweden was more about political/moral ­responsibility than it was about legal considerations. Basically, the columnists were arguing from a perspective of the ‘political situation’ in the country and the sha from a perspective of the ‘ideological intent’ of the organizations in question: the Sweden Democrats were criticizing Islam because they are racists and the sha was criticizing Islam because they are humanists. In interviews Sturmark rejected all critique of the campaign and viewed the columnists’ arguments as purely based on ideological differences. He argued that the content of the campaign was taken out of the humanist context and consciously distorted. He thought that the antagonists of the sha tried to silence the secular humanist voice in Sweden by associating the organization with the Sweden Democrats and accuse them of Islamophobia.74 The alleged connection between the Sweden Democrats and the sha was mainly based on: (1) the use of the blue and yellow insignia-flags in the campaign;75 (2) both groups’ perceived understanding of Islam as a negative force in the Swedish nation, and; (3) that both groups criticize Islam at the same historical time.76 74 75 76

Sturmark, 2014. As a nationalist party the Sweden Democrats use the Swedish flag as one of their main symbols. For example the article “The Muslims are our greatest foreign threat” was posted by the Sweden Democrat party leader Jimmie Åkesson (Åkesson 2009) in one of Sweden’s national newspapers Aftonbladet the same year as the There´s probably no God campaign. In the article he created a picture of Islam as a mediaeval and violent religion which has been at war with Europe for 600 years and that the “multiculturalist political elite” in Sweden today is handing over the country to the enemy through liberal immigration policy; the “political elite” is effectively destroying Sweden through islamization and the Sweden Democrats will do anything to stop them.

SWEDEN: RELIGIOUS CRITIQUE IN THE ‘WORLD’S MOST SECULAR COUNTRY’ 331

This being said, I want to conclude by stating that the sha and the Sweden Democrats are two very different kinds of organizations, both in the way they are organized and in their ideological perspectives. The Sweden Democrat party has its roots in the Swedish racist and neo-Nazi milieu of the 1980s and 1990s.77 The Swedish Humanist Association has its background in the Swedish free-thinking tradition, mainly going back to the philosopher Ingemar Hedenius. The sha is a politically independent membership organization that ­focuses on the “secular project” while the Sweden Democrats is a political party focusing on the “problem of immigration” and the threat of degeneration of “­Swedish culture.”78 The sha is more or less critical of all religions (even though the Abrahamic religions were the focus of the campaign) while the Swedish Democrats find Christianity to be part of their ‘Swedishness’, i.e. their national identity, and their criticism of religion is mainly directed towards Islam. The popularity of the Sweden Democrats has grown during the 21st ­century and they were voted into parliament in 2010. References Brodin, Jenny-Ann. 2001. Religion till Salu? – En sociologisk studie av New Age I Sverige. Akademitryck AB. Edsbruk. Bauhn, Per and Demirbag-Sten, Dilsa. 2010. Till frihetens försvar: en kritik av den normativa multikulturalismen. WS Bookwell. Finland. Bäckström, Anders. 2004. Religiösa förändringar i norra Europa. En studie av Sverige. Casanova, José. 2011. “The Secular, Secularizations, Secularism” In Craigh Calhoun, Mark Juergensmeyer and Jonathan Van Antwerpen (eds). Rethinking Secularism. Oxford University Press. Gardell, Mattias. 2011. Islamofobi. ScandBook. Falun. Gerle, Elizabeth. 2010. Farliga Förenklingar. Religion och politik utifrån Sverigedemokraterna och Humanisterna. Livonia Print. Riga. Hagevi, Magnus. 2010. “Vad vill religionskritikerna?” Avstamp. Magnus Hagevi (ed). Intellecta Infolog. Göteborg. Hellström, Anders. 2010. Vi är de goda. Den offentliga debatten om Sverigedemokraterna och deras politik. Bookwell. Finland. Jänterä-Jareborg, Maarit. 2010. “Religion and the Secular State in Sweden.” Religion and the secular state: National reports. Bringham Young University.

77 78

Rydgren 2006, 108. Hellström 2010, 140.

332

HEDELIND

Martinson, Mattias. 2012. “Atheism as Culture and condition. Nietzschean reflections on the contemporary invisibility of profound godlessness.” Approaching Religion. Vol 2.1. Olsson, Susanne and Sorgenfrei, Simon. 2011. “Svensk Religionskritisk Diskurs.” Din 3–4. Petterson, Thorleif. 2008. “Sekularisering.” Religion i Sverige. Ingvar Svanberg och David Westerlund (red). 08 Tryck. Stockholm. Petterson, Thorleif. 2009. “Religion och Samhällspraktik. En jämförande analys av det sekulariserade Sverige.” Socialvetenskaplig tidsskrift nr 3–4. Sturmark, Christer. 2007. Tro och Vetande 2.0. Norhaven. Danmark. Svanberg, Ingvar and Westerlund, David. 1999. “Från invandrar religion till blågul islam?” Blågul islam? Muslimer i Sverige. AiT Falun AB. Falun. Tomasson, Richard F. 2002. “How Sweden became so Secular.” Scandinavian Studies. Vol 74.1. Rydgren, Jens. 2006. Radical right-wing populism in Sweden. Bergagn Books. Oxford. Zuckerman, Phil. 2010. Society Without God. What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us about Contentment. New York University Press. New York. Zuckerman, Phil. 2012. “Contrasting irreligious orientations. Atheism and secularity in The USA and Scandinavia.” Approaching Religion. Vol 2.1.

Public State Reports and Laws

SOU 2009:52. Staten och imamerna. SFS 1999:974. Förordningen om stadsbidrag till trossamfund. Swedish Humanist Association meetings, Congress 2014.

Media Texts

Dagen 2010-02-19. “De här tio personerna påverkade svensk kristenhet mest under 00-talet.” Dagen. Jersild, P.C 2009-06-30. “Vi är inte okunniga.” Dagens Nyheter. Larsmo, Ola 2009-06-26. “Vi och de andra.” Dagens Nyheter. Lilja, Josefin 2012-11-14. “Hoten fick henne att lämna Unga humanister.” Dagen. Ringlander, Mikael, Blom, Sara and Eek, Jonas 2009-07/07. “Man behöver inte webbtesta sin tro.” Göteborgsposten. Rosenberg, Göran 2009-06-15a. “Blågul Gud.” Dagens Nyheter. Rosenberg, Göran 2009-06-18b. “Så vilka religioner har vi anledning att frukta?” Dagens Nyheter. Rosenberg, Göran 2009-07-03c. “En ansvarslös kampanj.” Dagens Nyheter. Sturmark, Christer, etc 2009-06-19a. “Sekulära manifested.” Dagens Nyheter. Sturmark, Christer 2009-07-02b. “Dagens Sverige rymmer mer än en sorts tro.” Svenska Dagbladet.

SWEDEN: RELIGIOUS CRITIQUE IN THE ‘WORLD’S MOST SECULAR COUNTRY’ 333 Sturmark, Christer 2009-06-18d. “Ateismen ingen religiös tro.” Dagens Nyheter. Sznap, Gabriel Itkes 2009-06-30. “Beslöjade ideal.” Expressen. Vigren, Patrick 2010-03-11. “Var finns kyrkan i debatten.” Kyrkans Tidning. Yngvesson, Susanne Wigorts. 2009-06-29. “Humanisterna målar upp en grotesk fiende.” Svenska Dagbladet. Wihlke, Ola 2009-06-15. “Humanismen och religionen.” Borlänge Tidning. Zetterman, Jacob 2012-06-15a. “Gud i Samhället Han vill sudda ut.” Dagen. Zetterman, Jacob 2012-09-25b. “Grönt ljus kampanja mot islam.” Dagen. Åkesson, Jimmie 2009-10-19. “Muslimerna är vårt största utländska hot.” Aftonbladet.

Websites

www.gudfinnsnoginte.se.

Interviews

Sturmark, Christer 2014, interview 17/01-14.

Mails

RO, Advertising Ombudsman 14/02-14.

Magazines from the Sweden Humanist Association

Sturmark, Christer. 2005a. “Intervju: Christer Sturmark – ny ordförande för Humanisterna.” Humanisten, nr 1. Sturmark, Christer. 2005b. “Regeringen diskriminerar dem som inte tror på Gud!” ­Humanisten, nr 4. Sturmark, Christer. 2007. “Likvärdighetsprincipen för statsbidrag till trossamfund.” ­Humanisten, nr 3. Sturmark, Christer. 2009c. “Gud finns nog inte.” Humanisten nr 2.

chapter 15

United Kingdom: All Publicity is Good Publicity, Probably Katie Aston Many people simply never think about God or religion as a serious question, and if this prods them a little bit, then that’s great. Rev. stephen wang, 2009

In 2008 the United Kingdom (uk) was host to the original ‘atheist bus campaign’, the catalyst for what became an international phenomenon. The spark? A 500-word post in the comments pages of the popular left leaning newspaper, The Guardian, written by comedian Ariane Sherine. Her post was a response to an evangelical Christian advertisement on a local London bus. The campaign had a surprising initial response, largely financial, allowing it greater scope than anticipated. Originally the hope had been to raise £11,000 but the final campaign raised more than ten times that amount and nearly 2000 adverts went out on buses and trains nationwide. Richard Dawkins, famed in the media for being a ‘New Atheist’ generated waves of interest and the British Humanist Association (bha) backing made use of existing networks of nonreligious people in the uk and further afield. Following this very public campaign international imitations were not far behind, eliciting their own local responses as they rolled out. In the uk there were few reported negative responses to the advertisement, save one lone story of a Christian driver refusing to work whilst his bus carried the advert. Since the adverts were agnostic in their use of the words ‘probably’ little came in the way of direct legal ramifications. The event is far from insignificant, however, and I would argue it has interesting links to the growing nonreligious landscape. We can no longer say that the uk is entirely indifferent to religion,1 despite growing numbers of people claiming to have ‘no religion’ and declining numbers of people self-identifying as ‘Christian’.2 The social context of the advertising campaign can be understood through data collected in 2008 as part of my own ma Anthropology research. At this time I documented media and online debates in relation to the campaign. This data will be complemented by interviews with Ariane Sherine, founder 1 Bullivant, 2012. 2 ons, 2012. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004328532_016

UNITED KINGDOM: ALL PUBLICITY IS GOOD PUBLICITY, PROBABLY

335

of the atheist bus campaign and Andrew Copson, who is the present ceo of the bha, having taken over from Hanne Stinson who was the ceo at the time the adverts were rolled out. This chapter will set the social context of the uk in relation to declining identification with the state Church (Census uk 2011) and the increasing visibility of minority religions.3 The chapter will address the reactive nature of this event alongside the increasing desire for atheists to feel recognised. Sherine describes a very real sense that people had until this point felt unable to ‘come out’ as atheist.4 15.1

All Aboard the ‘Atheist Bus’

The atheist bus slogan is now widely recognized and as testament to its visibility and success it even became a topic on the long running academic tv quiz, University Challenge: Jeremy Paxman: Another starter question. Appearing on the side of bendy buses from 2008, what three words complete the slogan, sponsored by the British Humanist Association, “THERE’S PROBABLY NO GOD. NOW STOP WORRYING AND…?” Contestant: “…ENJOY YOUR LIFE.” Jeremy Paxman: Yes!5 The slogan is the result of a fund-raising campaign which launched on October 21, 2008 by comedian and writer Arianne Sherine, with the aim of raising £11,000. This campaign was initiated by Sherine in 2008 on the Comment is Free pages of the website for The Guardian, a left of centre, liberal uk newspaper. The motivation for the bus campaigns was Sherine’s encounter with not one, but two, evangelical Christian adverts on the sides of London buses (Figure 15.1). Sherine had reacted strongly to the advert which read: “When the son of man comes, will he find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8). The advert then guided readers to a website, jesussaid.org, and she felt compelled to investigate further, only to be confronted with the following warning: For anyone who doesn’t accept the word of Jesus on the cross: you will be condemned to everlasting separation from God and then you spend all 3 Kim Knott, Elizabeth Poole, and Teemu Taira 2013, Tarlo 2010. 4 Cimino and Smith, 2007. 5 University Challenge semi-finals, Manchester vs. Lincoln College, Oxford First broadcast bbc 2, 9 February 2009.

336

ASTON

Figure 15.1 Proclaiming the truth advert similar to that seen by Sherine linking to the www.jesussaid.org website. Courtesy of Flikr https://www.flickr.com/photos/ brokendrumphotography/2565961868

eternity in torment in hell. Jesus spoke about this as a lake of fire which was prepared for the devil and all his angels (demonic spirits).6 matthew 25:41

Sherine had been disturbed by the strength of this message for the nonreligious, that they would spend “an eternity in hell…in a lake of fire.” She took action to make a more positive, alternative message. Sherine asked readers to donate just £5 each up to the value of £5,500 and then Richard Dawkins, well known evolutionary biologist and so-called ‘New Atheist’, had agreed to match what was raised up to £5,500. The national campaign proposed a poster on the sides of buses, 200 in London and 600 on buses nationwide. The campaign was launched on January and a press reception was held in a marquee beside London’s Albert Memorial to unveil the bus (Figure 15.2). Attending the launch alongside Polly Toynbee (President of the bha 2007–2012), Richard Dawkins (Darwinist and Supporter of the bha) and Ariane Sherine, were Father Ted comedy writer Graham Linehan, philosopher ac Grayling (bha Vice President) and comedian Robin Ince. Richard Dawkins unveiled the ad with the Douglas Adams quote, (which also featured in The God Delusion, 2006): “Isn’t 6 Sherine, 2008.

UNITED KINGDOM: ALL PUBLICITY IS GOOD PUBLICITY, PROBABLY

337

Figure 15.2 Ariane Sherine and Richard Dawkins in front of the ‘Atheist Bus’ courtesy of Wikepedia https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ commons/d/d3/Ariane_Sherine_and_Richard_Dawkins_at_the_ Atheist_Bus_Campaign_launch.jpg

it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”7 15.1.1 Just Giving The campaign had initially been posted on a Pledge Bank page by a blogger named Jon Worth. Nearly 900 people signed up to pledge £5, but this was short of the total 4,680 atheists required to reach the higher target of £23,000. When the campaign was then taken up by the bha and supported publicly by Richard Dawkins it moved to the JustGiving (jg) fundraising site. With the help of this high profile assistance the jg campaign closed in mid-2009, having raised £153,523.5 (2791 percent of the original £5,500 target). On the jg page alone, there were more than 6,680 individual donors, each pledging an average of £14.27 (£17.38 with Gift Aid); 370 people (5 percent) donated more than once and one person even donated 56 times. One of the major outcomes of the campaign, according to current British Humanist Association ceo Andrew ­Copson, was the increased profile of the jg web donations page. This campaign also indicated a growth in atheist activism both on and offline in the last 10 years.8 The internet was a crucial tool allowing the atheist campaign to succeed and go viral. This is of course notwithstanding the 7 Cited in Sims, 2009. 8 Smith and Cimino, 2012.

338

ASTON

support of organisations such as the bha which have gathered much of the baseline, core membership before the internet was as widely used as it is today. The campaign also mobilised many people from overseas (Australia, New Zealand, usa, etc.) who were not bha members and in the opposite direction it allowed for the sharing of images of the buses; leading to the possibility of fast paced international coverage and appropriation of the design. 15.2 The uk Landscape During the 20th century it was hypothesised, by a number of social science scholars, that the increasing and total modernisation of society would inevitably mean a decline in religious practise, at least in the public sphere. Max Weber, for example, predicted an epoch of disenchantment as a result of modernisation: The fate of our times is characterised by rationalisation and intellectualisation and, above all, by the ‘disenchantment of the world.’ Precisely the ultimate and most sublime values have retreated from public life either into the transcendental realm of mystic life or into the brotherliness of direct and personal human relations.9 The secularisation thesis can now be characterised as the assumption of the eventual decline of ‘religion’ or at the very least its decline in the public sphere.10 Some may argue that the secularisation in the uk context is a reality,11 including Andrew Copson who emphatically supports the quantitative data which points to the decline of the majority religion, the Church of England. Prior to the first, UK-based atheist bus campaign (2008), certain markers of religious affiliation, or perhaps more specifically Christianity, were on the decline. Contrary to the hypothesis of disenchantment and privatisation, some critique the notion of secularisation. For example, José Casanova argues that the theory of “differentiation” (the separation of secular and religious spheres) remains valid, but fails to find convincing evidence for the worldwide decline of religion or its privatisation.12 In the uk, Heelas and Woodhead (2005) and Davie (1994) argue that religion is not declining, but instead changing, becoming decentred and giving way to new forms of spirituality. Grace Davie argues 9 10 11 12

1946: 155. Voas, 2009. Bruce, 2002. Casanova, 2011.

UNITED KINGDOM: ALL PUBLICITY IS GOOD PUBLICITY, PROBABLY

339

that traditional visible markers of religiosity in the European context, such as church going, may be just the tip of the iceberg and what lies beneath is in fact more interesting (2003). Current events and debates across the globe suggest that religion remains salient and increasingly public; the ‘War on Terror’ and surrounding discourses on ‘fundamentalism’,13 the politics of the veil in Iran,14 evangelism through mass media in the United States and other parts of the world.15 There is also some evidence that religious groups do explicitly place themselves in the public sphere in the uk as a challenge to secularisation.16 15.2.1 Adverts up against Religion As previously stated I consider the atheist campaigns to be response campaigns; on the one hand responding to the shocking content of the Christian advertisements, so much so that it led to an emphasis on positivity in the atheist ad. On the other hand this is a response to religious messages being public at all. Finally there was further response from Christian groups and later still additional campaigns from the bha using the atheist bus graphic design. The first of the Christian response campaigns actually caused more legal controversy than its original counterpart. The other, perhaps more surprising reaction, was praise for the campaign from within the Christian community for opening the door on the debate about God;17 all publicity is good publicity after all. I will briefly address legality but since this was less of an issue in the uk context (than in other settings) this section will focus on the wider context of nonreligious advertising, particularly issues which have faced the bha in their own public campaigning. More recent examples of reactive transport advertisements include one from the gay rights campaign charity, Stonewall and a controversial response advert from a Christian public campaign which was subsequently banned from the sides of buses by Transport for London. It is therefore worth considering the nature of these public, moral engagements and asking what they tell us about what people can and cannot say in public spaces. 15.2.2 Who are the Nones? This campaign sought to mobilise what Sherine felt was a silent group of atheists, but this was made possible by existing networks of vocal nonreligious people. Rationalism, freethought, atheism and secularism had been codified 13 14 15 16 17

See Nagata, 2001. See Naghibi, 1999. For an example in Ghana see De Witte 2005. Strahn, 2012; Engelke, 2013. Theos, 2009.

340

ASTON

and organised for a number of years since the mid-19th century.18 That is not to suggest, however, that there was any clear movement of these vocal nonreligious organisations. One of the key trials for the organisations forming in the 19th century was how to best approach the question of religion. Factions were drawn between the more agnostic Rationalist Association (RA) and the more ‘militant’ Freethinker and National Secular Society.19 The attitude and strategies of two key figures in these organisations, Charles Bradlaugh and George Jacob Holyoake, and their followers, are particularly indicative of these dilemmas. Charles Bradlaugh (1833–1891) was a political activist and was involved in the establishment of the National Secular Society (nss) in 1866, which still exists today. George Jacob Holyoake (1817–1906) was a founding member of the co-operative movement and the Rationalist Association, and spent time lecturing on socialism and atheism before spending six months in prison in 1842 on the charge of Blasphemy. In 1851, Holyoake outlined the first explicitly ideological use of the word ‘secular’20 and in 1871 wrote The Principles of Secularism, which further codified his ideological position. Both men were well-respected and prolific lecturers, pamphlet writers, and debaters. Their secularist perspective was shared at a basic level, but they differed in terms of tone and strategy. According to Ashis Nandy, in his description of different forms of secularism in India, Bradlaugh “rejected religion and made science its deity.”21 Holyoake instead advocated a secularism that accommodated religion and that would “moreover emphasize diversities and co-existence in the matter of faith.”22 In 1970, the pair debated the topic “Is Secularism Atheism?” Holyoake criticised Bradlaugh’s zeal, arguing for the positive application of scientific morality and against attacking the existence of God. Bradlaugh disagreed, and argued that he would “Fight until men respected (atheism).” He claimed that since: Christianity would not allow [freethinkers] to exist side by side it [freethinking] must go boldly to [priests] with their […] propaganda and break their teeth, or else they [will] bite those members of your party who are weakest.23

18 Budd, 1977; Cooke, 2003; Royle, 1971, 1974, 1980; Schwartz, 2013. 19 Nandy, 1988; Herrick, 1982; Cooke, 2003: 12–19. 20 Taylor, 1957: 4. 21 1988: 181 22 Ibid. 23 Bradlaugh, cited in Budd, 1977: 46.

UNITED KINGDOM: ALL PUBLICITY IS GOOD PUBLICITY, PROBABLY

341

These debates outline the tensions between ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ attitudes, characterised by the sociologist Susan Budd as “iconoclastic and substitutionalist.”24 For Bradlaugh the anti-authoritarian ideological position meant direct challenges to religion. For Holyoake, the end goal of ‘scientific morality’ was attainable through some shared practices between religion and what he called secularism. This founding tradition led to schisms, and accounts for the relatively numerous secular humanist organisations that are operational today in comparison to demand, all of which continue to wrangle with these dilemmas. The contemporary nonreligious organisations operating in the uk today, including the nss, bha, ra and others such as the Leicester Secular Hall (lss) and the journal The Freethinker (ft) – also founded in the 19th century – continue to grapple with the question of tone and how to deal with religious groups. There is a tendency for groups to have followed their historical trajectory with the nss and Freethinker (linked to Bradlaugh) being more vociferous than their bha and ra counterparts (linked to Holyoake and an agnostic tradition). And it is clear from the tempered tone of the ‘Atheist Bus’ campaign that questions over its agnostic phrasing re-ignite these differing perspectives. A search for a positive ‘substitutional’ position is especially apparent in the lived and practiced aspects of humanism promoted by the bha. While many, including the ‘New Atheists’ continue to critique and challenge religion, there is a complex tension between these ‘iconoclastic and substitutional’ tendencies. This is perhaps not surprising since the bha and Conway Hall (home to the South Place Ethical Society) all emerged from a tradition of (dissenting or nonreligious) ethical movements operating in the 19th and early 20th century. The bha was set up in 1965, but began within the Union of Ethical Societies, which were instituted in the latter part of the 19th century with the aim of: “disentangl[ing] moral ideals from religious doctrines, metaphysical systems and ethical theories.”25 The organisation today promotes itself as: the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people who seek to live ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity.26 The contemporary organisations, especially the bha, demonstrate adherence to a range of the moral and practical underpinnings which emerged in their 19th century predecessors; these moral and social programmes were designed 24 25 26

Budd, 1977; Bullivant, 2013. Campbell, 1971. humanism.org.uk, emphasis added.

342

ASTON

to question religious regulation of the body (e.g. end of life issues, abortions and contraception); of relationships (e.g. marriage and divorce) and individual rights (e.g. free speech). Within these organisations there have been numerous attempts to create a collective vision; despite more common assertions that trying to collectivise nonreligious people is ‘like herding cats’. Inter-group differences have led to a proliferation of descriptive terms for what are broadly nonreligious phenomena. These include; atheist, rationalist, humanist, godless, irreligious, secularist, materialist, and even Bright. There are a number of contemporary active nonreligious communities in the uk; usually self-identifying as atheist, humanist and/or secularist. Many nonreligious individuals even form local groups which may meet in the evenings. The bha for example, has close to 60 local humanist groups, plus humanist choirs in London and Greater Manchester. More recently there has been a proliferation of Sunday Assemblies, dubbed in the media as ‘atheist churches’. Whilst the agenda of each self-identified group somewhat differs, we can find some crossover of language and description. It is because each group identifies themselves, at least in part, in relation to religion that when addressing the various groups collectively I will use the term nonreligious.27 I should note that the character and degree to which each group engages with religion differs. Further, while they all may be nonreligious each group or set of individuals has a different, self-given label which I make use of when appropriate. First let us look at the definition of atheism given on the official website of the atheist bus Campaign: Atheism [/aythi-iz’m/] is defined as “a lack of belief in God”…But atheism is much more than that. It’s about making sense of the world, thinking freely and feeling liberated because of it. It’s about using your intellect and sense of reason to learn what life is about, and having the courage to think for yourself. It’s about relying on evidence when deciding on your beliefs, and being brave enough to speak the truth.28 This statement implies a few interesting points which may be of use when thinking of the general issues surrounding organised atheism. This promotes personal responsibility but also outlines a set of shared characteristics; although the crucial point is that these should not be considered a doctrine.

27 28

Lee, 2012b. http://www.atheistbus.org.uk/atheism/accessed 31/03/2009 no longer available.

UNITED KINGDOM: ALL PUBLICITY IS GOOD PUBLICITY, PROBABLY

343

Atheism and humanism are both positions, but the label atheist or humanist is usually applied post-hoc.29 The British Humanist Association states: We work on behalf of non-religious people who seek to live ethical lives on the basis of reason and humanity. We promote Humanism, a secular state, and equal treatment of everyone regardless of religion or belief.30 Above I have outlined a number of different ‘nonreligious’ descriptors in the uk context. Here the term ‘atheist’ is appropriate in as much as this bus campaign directly refers to God, in the theistic sense and it also is a direct response to a theistic organisation. ‘Atheist’ is an easily recognisable label for a person who does not believe in God or a loosely defined group of people who espoused this view (such as ‘New Atheist’). I came to understand during my doctoral fieldwork (2011–2013) however, that this label was often avoided, either because it was too strong or because it only expressed what someone was not, instead of what they were. So ‘atheist’ only describes one sector of the nonreligious population. While humanism is secular (Copson, Personal correspondence), it is not an all-encompassing atheist group and if one considers atheism to be only the lack of God, humanists would argue their views are much more positively oriented. The bha make use of the term ‘secular’, which refers primarily to the political position desiring the complete separation of church (religion) and state.31 This position does not necessarily exclude religion entirely and someone desiring a secular state could at the same time be religious. The nss state that they are “the leading pressure group defending the rights of non-believers from the demands of religious power-seekers.” Here the dialogue is one of decisive action and designed for the non-believer. They do state that people should be free to choose to believe, to not believe or otherwise, and state: “We want to ensure that Human Rights always come before religious rights.” 15.3 ‘Probably’ In 2005, Barry Kosmin established the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture (hereafter the isssc) at Trinity College, in Hartford, 29 30 31

Copson, forthcoming. http://www.humanism.org.uk/home, emphasis added (accessed May 24, 2014). There are a number of competing definitions of this term (Lee, 2012). Here the secular is understood as it is made use of by these groups.

344

ASTON

Connecticut. In an interview with Free Inquiry magazine in 2005, Kosmin highlighted some of the larger issues and trends of secularism and assumptions surrounding the study of secularism which may need redressing. He suggested that “the tendency is towards polarisation as the middle ground has shrunk with the decline of ‘liberal religion’.”32 He also suggests that religion will “certainly” always be with us, but the Weberian concept of “disenchantment of the world” should not be entirely dismissed. While there may be an increasingly active, and newly invigorated, vocalising of atheist and nonreligious33 public discourse, this does not always manifest as militant or even anti-religious. This supposed New Atheist polemic may spring to mind when the term ‘atheist’ is mentioned, and this phenomena (real or not) may fit with a trend of polarisation. The atheist bus campaign, however, does not appear to entirely fit into this analysis. The relatively muted reaction to the atheist bus campaigns, and its relatively mild mannered approach, seems to locate it in the ‘middle ground’.34 The inclusion of the word ‘probably’ was both a pragmatic and ideological decision. For some this was a sign that the ‘atheists’ were admitting that they may be wrong and that in fact they were conceding to the possibility of the existence of God. In a promotional video on the Guardian website Dawkins admits he had initially been reticent about the use of the term ‘probably’. Polly Toynbee replies that although she imagined he might have found the addition of ‘probably’ a bit “soft,” she liked it. He replied: “No, I have come around to the idea” adding: “It’s funny. It gets people to talk. And if we’d said there’s definitely no God…well you can’t say that. You can’t say there’s definitely no Christmas.”35 In a tv interview on bbc’s Sunrise, Sherine appeared next to Francis Goodwin of the Churches Advertising Network.36 In the clip, Goodwin welcomes the 32 33

34

35 36

2005: 1. “Nonreligion is any position, perspective or practice which is primarily defined by or in relation to religion, but which is nevertheless considered to be other than religious. Alternatively put, nonreligion is anything which is defined, primarily, by a relationship of difference to religion” (Lee, 2011). We may also wish to contest the notion that ‘religious’ and ‘atheist’ (or secular/nonreligious) actors are in binary opposition as Kosmin’s polarisation suggests. Looking to scholars such as Taylor (2007), Cannell (2010) and Asad (2003), the secular and Christianity are actually regarded as ‘mutually constitutive’ and this may even go some way to explaining the relatively muted reaction, which takes place between ‘modern’ Christians and ‘modern’ Secular/atheist actors. Guardian, 2009. Available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmdRGyZqVsQ original broadcast details not available.

UNITED KINGDOM: ALL PUBLICITY IS GOOD PUBLICITY, PROBABLY

345

debate that the atheist bus adverts have created but suggests that he and his colleagues treat the advert with a “wry smile” as they only suggest that there is ‘probably’ no God. The presenters and Sherine both jump on this comment to remind him that this was to ensure the advert complied with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). Some atheists supported the buses, but felt the light-hearted approach was problematic. In the original Pledge Bank site one commenter stated: I wish there was a selection of differing slogans that could go on the bus that we could select from. I just don’t like the current one proposed – I would prefer something a little more affirmative or something. The current slogan comes off very apathetic and not definitive on any particular view point.37 Many enjoyed the slogan for its humour. Copson delighted in it being reminiscent of the light-hearted Carlsberg adverts, which claimed the product was “Probably the Best Lager,” perhaps even adding to the atheist campaign’s success with a certain demographic who may remember it. A commenter on Jon Worth’s blog (Worth 2009) pointed him to a bbc article by Stuart Hughes on the topic of the “Keep Calm and Carry On” campaign, arguably the “greatest motivational poster ever.” Hughes, 2009 this was originally designed in 1939 but has been widely remarketed since 2005 as a ‘kitsch’ item and therefore has resurfaced in the popular imagination. The poster reminded Helena (a commenter) of the atheist bus campaign, “in being very dry and pragmatic, but soothing none the less [sic].” Citing the bbc article she added: People are drawn to the calming Britishness of the message…It speaks to peoples’ personal neuroses. It’s not ideological, it’s not urging people to fight for freedom like some propaganda posters did.38 Sherine did tell me that she preferred the more agnostic stance implied by the term ‘probably’, not because she is not sure, as Goodwin’s comments implied, but because it’s more empirically accurate. The ‘God’ question has not been proven definitively on either side, hence the great debates which these adverts ignite. But Sherine also reiterated to me that it was the first time that atheists were given a public voice, adding: “before [the atheist bus campaign]

37 Andrew, Pledgebank.com. 38 Helena, pledgebank.com.

346

ASTON

we’d really been confined to bookshops and pub conversations. Here was an opportunity to bring atheism out into the open in a very practical way.” 15.3.1 New Atheism? The campaigns correspond roughly in dates with the emergence of New Atheist literature and the first usage of this term in 2006 in Wired magazine.39 The tone of the atheist advertising campaigns was important especially in a context where the media focuses excessively on extreme forms of atheism and ‘religion’.40 New Atheism is one such manifestation of this increasingly visible atheism which is often characterised as polemic and anti-religious. Richard Dawkins is a well-known evolutionary biologist, but is infamous for his publication and works, including the The God Delusion (2006), for which he gained the title New Atheist.41 This descriptor is now applied more widely to a movement, tone or group of phenomena which emerged as critical of religion in the mid 2000s. Collectively, Dawkins, Daniel Dennett (Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, 2006), Sam Harris (The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, 2005, and Letter to a Christian Nation, 2006), and Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, 2007) have been referred to as the ‘Four Horseman of Atheism’. Whilst these authors have not confined their written work ‘on religion’ (or atheism) to these books alone, these are the most infamous of the New Atheist texts. ‘New Atheism’ is a misnomer in many ways and is essentially a media generated ‘phenomena’. Many of the ideas which are associated with it can be linked to enlightenment thinkers, reasons, rationalism, empiricism, and naturalism. But equally the attitudes, arguments and ideals linked with new atheist are evident in the long tradition of organised freethought in the uk as previously mentioned. One of the major tensions underlying the organisation of people partially motivated by their ‘nonreligion’ is a focus on whether they are negative/subtractive or positive/substantive and debates abound over the appropriate tone of challenges to religion. The attitude and strategies of two key figures in these organisations, Charles Bradlaugh and George Jacob Holyoake, and their followers, are particularly indicative of these dilemmas.

39 Wolf, 2006. 40 Knott et al., 2013. 41 This term is widely attributed to Gary Wolf’s Wired article by Available at: http://www .wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html (accessed February 18, 2014), Wired magazine, Issue 14.11 – November 2006.

UNITED KINGDOM: ALL PUBLICITY IS GOOD PUBLICITY, PROBABLY

347

15.3.2 Agnostic Bus? According to Kettel in his article Faithless, the rise of what is broadly understood as New Atheism includes key variables that are common to both the us and Britain: (1) concerns about the growing political influence of religion as well as the dangers of religious beliefs; (2) transformations in mass communication; (3) cultural forces around the preeminent social authority of science, and; (4) the salience of identity politics.42 These are all applicable and valid ways of understanding the atheist campaign but this ‘short hand descriptor’ usually equated with a radical critical approach (to religion) is not totally in keeping with the tone of this advert. In fact, whilst Sherine is emphatic in her proclamations, Dawkins’ comments in the media are demonstrably verbose. In The God Delusion he writes: “Faith can be very, very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong.”43 He was also involved in a recent twitter row comparing the number of Nobel Prizes received by Muslims and Trinity College, Cambridge.44 Sherine’s views have instead become more ‘moderate’. In response to my questions about the campaign, and how her own view of atheism has changed in the intervening time she stated: I tend to think, live and let live. I only oppose religion where it actively tries to restrict others’ freedoms (gay rights, women’s reproductive rights, etc.). Thankfully in the uk t Please check the replaced dash with ellipses in the sentence “The voice of... his is happening less and less. [sic].45 In sum, the bus campaign is more in keeping with Holyoake, than with Bradlaugh. 15.4

Christian Reactions: The Arguments on the Bus Go Round and Round

The reaction in the uk to the slogan; “There’s Probably no God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life” was relatively mild. Despite the prediction of 42 43 44

45

Kettel, 2013. Dawkins, 2006, 348. The full tweet read: “All the world’s Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though.” @RichardDawkins August 8, 2013. See Trilling, 2013. Personal Correspondence, 2014.

348

ASTON

Dawkins “They have to take offense, it is the only weapons they’ve got…They’ve got no arguments”46 the only significant protest came from Mr. Ron Heather, a bus driver, refusing to drive a bus carrying the atheist slogan. Mr. Heather claimed, “my first reaction was shock horror,” however, this was also followed by the comment “I’d heard about this silly campaign in London but I had no idea it was coming to Southampton. I had certainly hoped they were not coming here because I didn’t want to make a stand.”47 Another negative response came from Stephen Green of Christian Voice, who attacked the “anti-God message” and more specifically Dawkins: How funny that Richard Dawkins is so scared of the threat which evangelical Christianity poses to atheism and his beloved Darwinism that he has to fund a campaign to attack God. He really is the nearest thing atheists have to an evangelist.48 A more common reaction both in the uk and across the world was retaliation. In the uk Rev. George Hargreaves responded like for like; down to appropriating the graphic design of the initial bus. On The Guardian website he wrote, “Our Answer to the Atheists,” in which he outlined plans for their own campaign which read: “There definitely is a God. So join the Christian party and enjoy your life.”49 Other Christian responses were more welcoming. The Christian thinktank Theos gave £50, reckoning: “Stunts like this demonstrate how militant atheists are often great adverts for Christianity.”50 Further the Alpha Course set up another jg page to draw in donations for their own cause, “only for it to be hijacked by atheists (hey, it’s not often that we hijack things).”51 The apparent intention to open debate, however, meant many Christian groups, rather than being offended, thanked the atheists. The Rev. Stephen Wang, of the Westminster diocese of the Roman Catholic Church responded, “Many people simply never think about God or religion as a serious question, and if this prods them a little bit, then that’s great.”52 The desire of the atheist bus campaign ­organisers

46 Cited in Marquand, 2009. 47 Cited in Walker, 2009. 48 Cited in Sims, 2009. 49 Hargreaves, 2009. 50 See Sherine, 2009. 51 Ibid. 52 Cited in Marquand, 2009.

UNITED KINGDOM: ALL PUBLICITY IS GOOD PUBLICITY, PROBABLY

349

Figure 15.3 Judy Walker’s cartoon, New Humanist issue 124: 4, 2009. Courtesy of the cartoonist

to create a debate had the additional effect of raising the public profile of both atheist and Christian organisations. A number of cartoons abound at the time of the events but two make a particular joke about the responsive nature of the adverts, referring back and forth between each other. ‘The Secularists’ by Dave Walker was published in The Guardian (2012) a couple of years after the campaign and Judy Walker’s image was published in the New Humanist magazine (2009) as a more immediate response to the adverts. These are both excellent commentaries on the way we are confronted with ideas in public spaces. Judy’s Cartoon is a black and white line drawn scene of London’s Oxford Street, completely taken up by six adjoining bus carriages (Figure 15.3). The first reads: “God Does Exist.” The remaining carriages then alternate the response “Oh, no he doesn’t” and “Oh Yes he does!” riffing on the playful chanting that takes place at pantomimes. The joke of the cartoon is that such debates are tit-for-tat nature, generating more noise about both sides of the story. Dave Walker’s cartoon is also a simple black and white line drawing of an urban scene; including advertising hoardings, a bus, a building with a banner attached and man holding an advert, a ubiquitous site somewhere like Oxford Street and a plane trailing another banner. All these surfaces are adorned with a message which shouts “Christianity” and in smaller letters beneath this it reads: “Not worth thinking about.” The title of the cartoon is “The Secularists launch their advertising campaigns.” Again, the joke here is that by making these public proclamations, the ‘secularists’ are drawing increased attention to Christianity, the thing they claim to be attacking. “The Secularists” thus mimics the sentiment of Wang and Theos; by drawing attention to the nonreligious cause, they are inadvertently drawing attention to the ‘question’ of God. Despite the ‘Atheist Bus’ message challenging God,

350

ASTON

by calling people to action, it is asking people to think about the question in hand. If secularisation is marked by an indifference to religion,53 these campaigns demonstrate not only engagement but draw out debates which challenge indifference. In February 2009 Trinitarian Bible Society rolled out an advert on 100 bus sides carrying a line from Psalm 53.1 “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.”54 As an example of a more contemporary debate in action, Sherine and David Larlham, the secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society, discussed the issues raised by the atheist bus campaign in a bbc video, available on Youtube.55 In the video, Sherine explains the genesis of her campaign to Larlham which stated that non-Christians would “burn in hell for all eternity.” She then turns to Larlham and asks, “do you believe that all non-Christians will burn in hell for eternity?” Larlham: Yes I do…that’s what the bible says. Sherine: So you think all Hindus, Muslims, Jews… are going to hell? Larlham: Absolutely. Jesus Christ said “I am the way the truth and the light”…but the great message is, people do not need to go to hell….I would also say that I support your advertisements because I think it’s good that people have freedom of speech in this country, many countries don’t have that. We should cherish that and I think that anything that prompts people to think about God, which your adverts do, is a good thing. I would prefer there to be the word of God on there. Larlham then goes on to describe the adverts as “provocative and constructive” but questioned the implication that it was suggesting “believers” don’t enjoy life. The Russian Orthodox Church also printed ads on 25 buses in the uk that read: “There IS a God, BELIEVE. Don’t worry and enjoy your life.” Fr. Andrew Phillips, a representative of the Russian Orthodox Church, shared Larlham’s sentiment and stated that “it was the concept that, because people believe in God that they weren’t enjoying their life, that was most peculiar,” he

53 54

55

Bruce cited in Bullivant, 2012. The society was founded in 1831, some 50 years before many of the existing nonreligious organisations. It was, however, in the mid-1800s that the freethought movement began to burgeon, making use of lecture, tracts and pamphlets to counter the existing Christian media of the time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRc86FoWEv0.

UNITED KINGDOM: ALL PUBLICITY IS GOOD PUBLICITY, PROBABLY

351

said. “I would have thought that atheists could have thought of a much better slogan.”56 Sherine responded to Larlham’s comment and (Phillips’ indirectly): No, it’s talking to nonbelievers and saying “if you don’t believe in God there’s nothing to be worried about because you’re not going to hell.” In the final moments of her discussion with Larlham, Sherine asserts that she is passionate about giving a voice to atheism, as they have not had one before and hopefully they will get comfort from knowing that other people feel the same way that they do. Continuing the conversation with Dawkins in the promotional video, Toynbee went on to say: “I get offended by being called soulless, spiritless and an emotionless dry rationalist and a hater.” One of the key reactions to the campaign was in legitimating many who felt (wrongly or rightly) marginalised in the public sphere as an atheist or nonreligious person and had similar feelings to Phillips and Larlham, that they were deemed by believers as being joyless. Many nonreligious people feel that morality on the one hand, and joy and awe on the other have been synonymous with religion and particularly Christianity for too long. In my own work with celebrants accredited by the bha a number commented on encountering comments of surprise from families whose funerals or weddings they had performed. Their reactions went along the lines of: ‘You can’t be an atheist, you’re too nice’. As a counter to this the bha logo is the ‘Happy Human’ adopted after a competition organised in 1965 saw member Dennis Barrington as winner (Figure 15.4) and more recently the message that you can be “Good without God” is spread by the bha via badges and posters (Figure 15.5). These perceived injustices on both sides do lead to a sense of cohesion of sorts. Despite rejecting any general shared doctrine, nonreligious people I worked with did seek ‘like-minds’. Sherine’s comments to me resonate with this, and reflecting back on the campaign she felt it had created a sense of community, and opened space for atheists to ‘come out’. Perhaps as testament to this ourmanwhere commented on the Just Giving Blog: Congratulations. I love the idea and it shows that us Atheists have a massive voice and we’ve probably kept quiet too long… Politicians in particular should be aware that we’re far more impressed by clear thinking than we are by the professed depth of your religious beliefs [sic].57

56 57

Cited in Ribeiro, 2009. http://jgarchive.wordpress.com/ (accessed October 21, 2008).

352

ASTON

Figure 15.4 bha Logo and the Winning entry courtesy of the Author. Available at Bishopsgate Institute Library, reference: BHA/1/2/7

But others on the same page complained that ‘atheists’ should not waste their money on buses but instead should give the money to charity. They argued that it was not worth focusing simply on this shared atheism, but on more substantial ethical principles that a charity may represent. The JustGiving page58 itself became a noticeboard displaying a range of differing opinions; 58

http://www.justgiving.com/atheistbus.

UNITED KINGDOM: ALL PUBLICITY IS GOOD PUBLICITY, PROBABLY

353

Figure 15.5 Good without God badge courtesy of the Author

many people were visiting the site to read some of the 300 pages of comments posted by donors. In the first week there were 14 million visitors who spent an average of 3 minutes on the site. Since the visitor numbers far exceeded the donations given and the visit time was quite lengthy, Waddingham, a blogger for jg, suggested that people were interested in what others were saying. Copson reiterated this and suggested it had become a social and community page in many ways. 15.5

Bus Campaigns

The comments also made it clear that there was some confusion about who the adverts were responding to. Marcus, for example, wrote: “Well done guys – It’s about time we stood up to the people at Alpha and their mindless advertising.”59 This was a reference to the Alpha Course, another public ‘religious’ campaign demonstrative of a number of interacting religious and 59

Ibid., October 24, 2008.

354

ASTON

­ onreligious encounters through advertisements although not always as strong n as the Jesussaid campaign. The Alpha campaigns are perhaps more in keeping with what ­Kosmin and Keysar characterised above, as “liberal” religious practice Kosmin & Keysar (2009). The website for the Alpha Course commented on their own 2001 campaign which was launched across the uk advertising the course to be displayed on 1,300 billboards and 3,000 buses. The purpose, according to their website, was as follows: “The campaign forms part of the churches’ plan to reverse the decline in attendance over the past twenty years. Only 7.5% of the population now regularly attends church.”60 According to the National Statistics website, the results of the 2001 Census for England and Wales suggest 15.5 percent of the population (8.6 million people) considered themselves to have no religion. Further, 77.2 percent of the population considered themselves to have some religious belief; the majority identifying as Christian at 71.8 percent (41million people).61 To elaborate on these results, a bbc poll (2005), conducted by icm Research Ltd, took the opinion of 10,000 people in 10 countries. The results found 29 percent of people in the uk agreed with the statement “The world would be a more peaceful place if people didn’t believe in God” compared to 67 percent of people who believe in God or a higher power. Though statistically people identifying as having religious belief seem to remain in the majority, the bbc poll taken in 2004 would suggest that comparatively the uk population is fairly weak or liberal in their beliefs. In response to the statement “I pray regularly” only 25 percent of those polled in the uk agreed compared to 95 percent of Nigerian respondents (the highest on the poll) and an average response of 58 percent of people agreeing across the ten countries. This trend seems to have continued. A 2011 Census for England and Wales showed approximately a quarter of the population (14.1 million people) ticked the ‘no religion’ box and 59.3 percent of the population (33.2 million people) stated they were Christian. Muslims were the second largest religious groups at 4.8 percent of the population (2.7 million people).62

60 61 62

http://uk.alpha.org/media-room/press-release/poster-design-features-three-young -people-advertising-initiative (accessed March 3, 2009). http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=954 (accessed March 3, 2009). The Census is a contentious source of information since many feel the question ‘What is your religion?’ is misleading or even worse, leading by presuming that the respondent has a religion. Organisations such as the bha also suggest that the census result may also be over representative of Christianity, and that in reality what people stating this preference mean is much more complicated (see YouGov poll, 2011).

UNITED KINGDOM: ALL PUBLICITY IS GOOD PUBLICITY, PROBABLY

355

15.5.1 ‘If you’re not religious, for God’s Sake say so’ Alpha are not the only group concerned with the decline in church attendance. The bha too were interested in the relatively low engagement with public religious institutions, including church going, compared to the large number of those claiming to be Christian in the Census for England and Wales. A visible ‘Campaign’ was run by the bha in 2010–2011 to encourage people to put ‘no religion’ on the 2011 Census. The campaign consisted of advertisements in public spaces and on national public transport that states, “If you’re not religious for God’s sake say so.” The graphic design and wording was reflective of the earlier 2008 atheist bus campaign. They were not attempting to convert those who had religion, but to encourage those who may be inclined to put ‘Christian’ on the Census as ‘cultural’ or even out of ‘habit’, to tick ‘no religion’ instead. The bha premised this campaign on the fact that incorrect or misleading Census results unfairly weight provision to organisations such as the Church of England. A website dedicated to this campaign states that the earlier, 2001 results were used to justify 26 Bishops in the House of Lords, an increase in faith schools, and continued religious broadcasting. This is not an exhaustive list of the complaints and they relate substantially to the existing secular(isation) agenda of the organisation: If the 2011 Census creates a similarly inaccurate figure, it may lead to further discrimination against non-religious people and greater privileging for religious groups and individuals.63 Essentially the ‘negative’ result of wrongly inflated statistics is that religion and specifically the Church of England will therefore ‘speak for’ people for whom they are not representative; tying the campaign in with discourses around democracy. 15.6

Contested Public Sphere

In her recent account of the atheist bus campaigns, Lois Lee situates them within the wider New Atheist phenomena but more pressingly analyses their materiality. The New Atheist phenomena and accounts of it have, she argues, been equated with overly intellectualist accounts of emerging nonreligious phenomena.64 In particular analysis of the campaigns usually focuses on the 63 Census.org.uk. 64 Lee, Forthcoming.

356

ASTON

content of the advertisement, especially the use of the word ‘probably’. Lee feels that a material approach is more appropriate; looking into the way that these things are experienced and how the buses move in the city. Lee is particularly critical of the intellectualist pursuit of reading the message of the campaigns, preferring instead to concentrate on the medium. I argue that one requires as much attention as the other. In fact I would argue that the two are mutually constitutive and both determine the success and the salience of the event. The message of the slogan is key, but so too is the act of expressing that message, as well as the tone in which it is delivered. This is then linked in with the materiality of the bus itself, as a form that follows you in the street and is in many ways unavoidable. It is crucial to reiterate that the atheist bus campaigns are a response and one response was to counter the tone of the initial Christian advert. Copson reminded me that “the [jesussaid] advert appears to speak directly to you;” thus it becomes assaulting in a very particular, personal way which belies the nature of it being public and thus something you can ignore if you so choose. Anna Strhan points out in her discussion of a more recent bus campaign by Core Issues Trust (detailed below) that: London seems to stand as a paradigmatic site of modernity, as the ideal of tolerance has played an important part of imaginings of cities as complex, pluralist settlements, patterned on an interplay of social distance and proximity that does not interfere but allows the other to be other.65 The relatively muted reaction to the atheist bus campaign is telling; that many people do not find this message exceptional or problematic tells us something either about the tolerance of the uk public in their plural setting or the relatively uncontentious nature of it. This final point was reiterated to me by Andrew Copson in our conversation about the atheist campaigns. 15.6.1 Free Speech The ASA received over 1,000 complaints about the Christian Party (CP) advert (the atheist bus campaign received a mere 326 complaints) (ASA, 2011). This made it the fourth most complained about campaign that the asa had dealt with. Paul Sims, writing for the New Humanist [nh] magazine suggested that perhaps this was a sign that atheists were more easily offended than C ­ hristians after all.66 The Committees of Advertising Practice (cap)67 wrote an article 65 66 67

Strhan, 2012: 7. Sims, 2009. The Committees of Advertising Practice (cap) write and maintain the uk Advertising Codes, which are administered by the Advertising Standards Authority. In their own

UNITED KINGDOM: ALL PUBLICITY IS GOOD PUBLICITY, PROBABLY

357

about the complaints against the cp, which apparently mirrored previous complaints against the atheist bus campaign. Complaints were made on the grounds that: “it was offensive to people of no faith and complainants questioned whether the Christian Party could substantiate the definite existence of God.” Many commenting on Sims’ article upheld these types of criticisms, by stating that it was in fact the use of the word ‘definitely’ that made the cp campaigns problematic. Under Sims’ article a commenter, Paul Chana, stated that he was one of those that complained. In his comment, he says he was surprised to find that the asa would not investigate the complaints, and stated in a letter to him: “It turns out that the Christian Party is a political party so I’m sorry to tell you that we’re unable to deal with the specific issues you raise.” This is also borne out by the cap article in which they state that “complaints were not upheld because it was electioneering,” but, “even if it had been in the remit [of the asa], the ad was obviously an expression of the advertiser’s opinion and not capable of objective substantiation and it was unlikely to seriously offend those who did not believe in God.” Sims then joined in the discussion below his article, adding his personal view: I know many will disagree, I don’t see why they shouldn’t be allowed to run these ads. If atheists can, then why can’t Christians? I know theirs has the statement “definitely” rather than “probably”, but does this really matter? I just think it comes down to free speech. I have no objection to seeing Christian ads as long as atheist ads can run too, which we know they can.68 The remaining commenters debated whether the complaints were necessary, one suggesting that the use of ‘probably’ was preferable in all cases. Even if atheists had been able to use the term ‘definitely’ it would have been incorrect, much like the cp advert was incorrect for having no evidence to prove its claim. Another commenter, Lainley, claimed it her right to exercise free speech by complaining, adding that she has wanted her voice counted: “I complained about the ads, but not because I don’t want them run. Only because I want my name added to the counter of people who think it’s dumb and unsubstantiated, and for the people who ran the ads to realize that a lot of people disagree

68

guidelines, clause 3.1, it is necessary for “… marketers [to] hold documentary evidence to prove all claims … that are capable of objective substantiation.” (2009), leading to the belief that the asa should or would uphold a ban. They did not however as these were considered political campaigns. Sims, 2009.

358

ASTON

with them.” Another commenter countered that complaining about the ad was an exercise in free speech in certain forums, but to complain to the asa amounted to censorship. In a Guardian article, reporting the launch of the nationwide bus campaign, Sherine is quoted as saying, “this is a great day for freedom of speech in Britain” (2009). The bus campaigns were in general left uncensored but there are other instances where similar campaigns have been challenged. One organization refused to carry the bha’s Census adverts since it carried the phrase: “If you’re not religious: For God’s Sake Say So.” “It is a little tongue-in-cheek,” claimed Copson, “but in the same way that saying ‘bless you’ has no religious implication for many, ‘for God’s sake’ is used to express urgency and not to invoke a deity.” The problem for Copson lay in the censorship of the advert, despite the blasphemy laws in the uk having been abolished. As an outcome of the bus campaigns, The Guardian newspaper and the Humanist Society of Scotland teamed up to make “Thought for the World,” inspired by the (faith-based) bbc radio four programme Thought for the Day. On this programme Ariane Sherine spoke on the subject of “Freedom of Speech and Belief.” In her speech she stated: Lately, many people in the uk have been despairing of our own government. They are worried about the economy, about job security, about id cards being introduced and freedom of speech being curtailed. They are right to stand up and try to protect our freedoms, which should never, ever be taken for granted.69 In the British context, a number of laws have circumvented absolute notions of free speech. In 2008, the offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel were abolished in England and Wales. This had been mooted for a number of years, and was supported by nonreligious groups. What was not supported was the Racial and Religious Hatred Act which was passed in 2006, effective October 1, 2007. This law was an attempt by the New Labour government (1997–2010) to protect minority religions, since at that time the blasphemy law covered only the Christian faiths, as attempts to prosecute Salman Rushdie over the Satanic Verses had demonstrated. The justification for the amendment came amidst worry over attacks on Muslims, in light of the new visibility of that community following 9/11. A select committee report stated: 69

Sherine, 2009b.

UNITED KINGDOM: ALL PUBLICITY IS GOOD PUBLICITY, PROBABLY

359

…extremist organisations are evading the racial offences under the Public Order Act 1986. They use religion as a surrogate for their real target of race, as the Police and the Home Office confirm (and we have seen a plethora of objectionable material in support of that view).70 This view also seems to be supported by the work of Knott et al., who, in their recent publication Media Portrayals of Religion and Secular Sacred, claim that Islam has received an increased level of media coverage in 2008–2009 compared with the 1980s.71 This is clearly disproportionate to the number of people who are represented by these identifying labels (see Census 2011, ons 2012). In 2012 the Centre for Inquiry uk (cfi) (a section of the bha) teamed up to bring the Blasphemy! conference to Conway Hall.72 The event focused on the “criminalization of religious hatred, defamation, and insult under European human rights, and how this functions as a de facto blasphemy law.” The shadow of the Incitement Law was seemingly long. The speakers included Kenan Malik, Austin Dacy, Andrew Copson,73 Jacob Mchangama and Maryam Namzie. I will not go into huge detail on these talks but want to note two key defences of free speech which were central to it and have relevance in this chapter. The first, an absolutist defence of free speech offered by Kenan Malik, author of From Fatwa to Jihad and a writer for the nh magazine. Malik’s talk, “Beyond the Sacred,” explored the changing notions of ‘the sacred’ and ‘blasphemy’. Religion has, ironically, become secularised, driven less by a search for piety and holiness than for identity and belongingness. The rise of identity politics has transformed the meaning not just of religion but of blasphemy too. Blasphemy used to be regarded as a sin against God. These days it is felt as a sin against the individual believer, an offence against the self and one’s identity.74 70 2003. 71 Their data suggests that in 1982 there were 33 total references to Islam in selected Newspapers and Television channels over a 1 Month period. In comparable sources in 2008 over the same period, 306 references were made. 72 Conway Hall is owned by the South Place Ethical Society (now Conway Hall Ethical Society) and was built in 1929. It is situated in Red Lion Square, London and as well as weekly Sunday meetings of ches holds a number of lectures, classes, exhibitions and events. 73 Copson’s talk was also interesting since it explored the advertising agencies in the uk and a particular, bureaucratic form of censorship; blasphemy ‘by the back door’. 74 2012.

360

ASTON

Malik contends instead, that rather than free speech being a religious issue, it is now framed by homogenising discourses of community. The sacred, therefore, has become a political issue rather than one of divine space. Malik’s problem with the notion of the sacred is that it puts some ideas “off limits.” (see also Malik, 2012, 2014)75 I heard this view in various forms during my fieldwork: “If you have a taboo, fine, then don’t do the taboo, but don’t enforce that on everyone else. You have no right to.” The second issue of free speech was made salient in April 2012 when Transport for London (TfL) decided not to allow an advertisement placed by Anglican Mainstream to appear on buses. The proposed wording was part of a Core Issues Trust (cit) campaign and exclaimed: “NOT GAY! EX-GAY, POST-GAY AND PROUD. GET OVER IT!” The advert responded to a campaign by Stonewall which had appeared on the outside of TfL’s buses in 2012. The Stonewall adverts read: “SOME PEOPLE ARE GAY. GET OVER IT!” TfL ruled that the cit advert contravened their own advertising policy and that it was “[…] likely to cause widespread or serious offense to members of the public on account of the nature of the product or service being advertised, the wording or design of the advertisement or by way of inference […] and/or [contained…] images or messages which relate to matters of public controversy and sensitivity.”76 However, in light of this defence to ban the advert, Mrs. Justice Lang in her report for the High Court case between cit and TfL stated that both the original Stonewall advert and the earlier bha supported atheist bus campaign “were in the form of confrontational assertions which made no contribution to a reasoned debate.” She added: The British Humanist Association advertisement was highly offensive to the religious beliefs of the significant section of the public who believe in God. The Stonewall advertisement was highly offensive to fundamentalist Christians and other religious groups whose religious belief is that homosexuality is contrary to God’s teachings.77 Andrew Copson commented on the ruling (BHA, 2013), arguing that the suggestion that the mild mannered atheist bus campaign was offensive, was “clearly setting the bar of offence ludicrously low.” He added: This assumes that people are automatically offended by others saying things they don’t believe themselves. But this isn’t offence – it’s 75 Ibid. 76 Cited in Lang, 2013 para 26. 77 Ibid., para 145.

UNITED KINGDOM: ALL PUBLICITY IS GOOD PUBLICITY, PROBABLY

361

disagreement – and trying to suppress it in the public sphere is inimical to the maintenance of a free society. There are good reasons to ban some adverts but offence is not one of them. Copson asserted that one “good reason” for banning the cit in particular might be that claims that homosexuality can be cured are unacceptable. He likened the cit statement to telling “people with life threatening diseases they should pray instead of taking medicine.”78 In an interview with Copson he was also critical of the way in which the Christian adverts, such as those which sparked the atheist bus campaign, seemed to speak in a direct way to individuals, affecting their public nature. In a recent article, On the importance of the right to offend, published by nh magazine, Kenan Malik cites critique of a ban of the “Christian anti-gay” campaign. Malik states: “Believers have as much right to offend liberal sensibilities as liberals have the right to offend religious ones.” Whilst the atheist bus campaigns were clearly reactive, they make tangible the ‘right’ to respond. Rather than calling for a ‘ban’, when offended they respond with a different kind of message, much like the Christian organisations then in turn. This argument can be summarised either as “The Sacred for all! Blasphemy for All!” (cfi, 2012) or the sacred for no one, offence for all! Either way, free expression should trump offence every time. 15.6.2 The Public Sphere The atheist bus campaign received a great deal of media attention, so much so that it featured on the satirical news programme, Have I Got News For You (hignfy) in which host Alexander Armstrong refers to Arianne Sherine (BBC, 2008). Armstrong explains that Sherine was annoyed by notices on the bus referring to eternal damnation: “Yes,” Armstrong said, “like ‘This is the 159 to Croydon’.” The segment was wrapped up with the joke: “There’s probably no God? More to the point there’s probably no bus!” Adding: “It’s not exactly clear what purpose the ads will serve, but being told there’s probably no God might just make a chap think twice before blowing himself up on the top deck.” So not only do the campaigns form part of the cities mundane wallpaper,79 religion and transport also have an extraordinary connection in the public consciousness. In addition to this, the ‘red bus’ is synonymous with London’s urban ­landscape and despite it’s being atheist, Armstrong’s jokes suggest it cannot escape these other mundane qualities either. The crucial point here is that the public sphere and the urban landscape are becoming contested sites, 78 79

Copson, 2013. Lee, 2011.

362

ASTON

where the boundary between freedom of religion and freedom of speech are played out. I have already marked out the buses as a response to the tone of the adverts which Sherine and Copson deemed inappropriate and in your face. Another kind of response is to the media savvy ways in which Christian groups are making use of the public sphere, and public spaces.80 During my ongoing doctoral research with nonreligious people in the uk, I was told regularly that religions, in particular the Church of England and fundamentalist groups, continue to (disproportionately) assert themselves in the public sphere. In his study of the Bible Group in London, Matthew Engelke makes example of posters they have been designing. In this they are trying to surprise nonreligious people taking inspiration from the slogan reveal section of the show hignfy. The “Riddle of Life” posters were based on biblical stories, with the intention of demonstrating their contemporary relevance. Here Engelke explores an example of a religious organisation working consciously with a contemporary secular public landscape, to engage it and to shape it. The bus campaigns, atheist and Christian, are tit-for tat responses, but also respond to assumptions about the private nature of religion and challenges to the ‘secularisation’ thesis. Strhan points out in her study of Evangelical Christians in the uk that the response to the Core Issues poster and surrounding debates: “reveal the interweaving in the media of particular contemporary ideals about ‘public’ religion, tolerance, difference, equality, sexual morality and cities.” The atheist bus, Stonewall, Core Issues, Alpha, Trinitarian, Christian Party and Russian Orthodox campaigns play a central role in broader arguments about the public sphere and reveal boundaries of what constitutes acceptable speech. Both of the examples linked to hignfy reveal two different, but equally, difficult challenges to assertions that religion as a private matter. In 2009, I performed an ethnographic study of the media responses to the atheist bus campaign. Here I argued that the atheist bus was a reactive event; coming up against, and then responding to, visible religious practice in the uk. This could include visible shifts in existing practice;81 symbolically loaded visual markers (such as the cross or the veil) challenging ideas of private religion;82 disproportionate media coverage of ‘extremism’, both religious and atheist,83 and finally

80 Engleke, 2013; Strhan, 2012. 81 Dinham et al., 2009; Davie, 1990; Woodhead and Catto, 2012. 82 Tarlo, 2010. 83 Knott et al., 2013.

UNITED KINGDOM: ALL PUBLICITY IS GOOD PUBLICITY, PROBABLY

363

the mediation of religious ideas, practices and proselytization which bring religion into new and unexpected spheres.84 These newly visible practices therefore pose problems for anyone assuming that secularisation was possible or at the very least a simple progressive tale. The decline of Christianity in the uk cannot be denied, it is clearly marked in polls, as is a lack of commitment to the usual markers such as church attendance. Yet visible expressions of religiosity still challenge widely held feelings that religion is or should be a private matter. 15.7

All Publicity is Good Publicity

Ultimately the atheist bus campaign provides an understanding of ways in which nonreligion becomes expressed as part of a growing cause of selfidentity, freedom and morality. The buses and other material expressions of nonreligion (see Lee, forthcoming), become part of a network of strategies and debates which characterise current rejections of religion. It is important to recognize that the response to religion is relational, but this does not necessarily mean oppositional. There is a greater need to understand nonreligious positions as having substance, and not simply being a ‘lack of’ something. The nonreligious groups are contesting this, but, in making a statement about how one ought to enjoy life if there is no God, this becomes a moral statement. Finally, examples of both nonreligious and religious practice in this chapter suggest parallel strategies and shared goals of membership and recognition. In my own work I have found a tension between, on the one hand, wanting to avoid dogma, and, on the other hand, wanting to promote certain ideals and values which may form part of shared identities and practices. Many nonreligious people, however, are simply seeking legitimation for a position they feel is genuinely marginalised and makes them a target for stigma and moral judgement. References Advertising Standards Authority, Annual Report 2011. Doi: http://www.asa.org.uk/~/ media/Files/ASA/Annual%20reports/AR%20ONLINE_FIN AL280512.ashx. Appignanesi, Lisa, ed. 2005. Free Expression is No Offence: An English Pen Book. Penguin UK. 84

Meyers and Moors, 2005; Lynch et al., 2011.

364

ASTON

Asad, Talal. 2003. Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity. Stanford University Press. BBC. November 11, 2005. “UK Among Most Secular Nations.” Last updated, http://news .bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/default.stm (accessed July 15, 2014). BBC. October 24, 2008. “Have I got News For you,” Series 36, Episode 2. First Broadcast. British Humanist Association. March 22, 2013. “BHA Responds to High Court Judgement in Bus Adverts Case.” https://humanism.org.uk/2013/03/22/bha-responds-tohigh-court-judgement-in- gay-cure-bus-adverts-case/ (accessed July 14, 2014). Bruce, Steve. 2002. God is Dead: Secularization in the West. Oxford: Blackwell. Budd, Susan, Varieties of Unbelief Atheists and Agnostics in English Society, 1850–1960. Heinemann Educational, 1971. Bullivant, Stephen. 2012. “Not so Indifferent After All? Self-Conscious Atheism and the Secularisation Thesis.” Approaching Religion 2.1: 100–106. Cannell, Fenella. 2010. “The Anthropology of Secularism.” Annual Review of Anthropology 39: 85–100. Casanova, José. 2011. Public Religions in the Modern World. University of Chicago Press. Cimino, Richard, and Christopher Smith. 2007. “Secular Humanism and Atheism Beyond Progressive Secularism” Sociology of Religion 68.4: 407–424. Cooke, Bill. 2003. The Blasphemy Depot: A Hundred Years of the Rationalist Press Association. Rationalist Press Association. Committee of Advertising Practice. April 14, 2009. ‘More Things are in Heaven and Earth than are Dreamt About in your Advertisement’. CAP News. http://www.cap .org.uk/cap/news_events/news/2008/religion%20update%20april.htm (accessed June 30, 2009). Copson, Andrew. Forthcoming. The Wiley Blackwell Handbook on Humanism. Davie, Grace, “Believing without Belonging: Is this the Future of Religion in Britain?” Social Compass 37: 4, 1990, pp. 455–469. Davie, Grace. 1994. Religion in Britain since 1945: Believing without Belonging. Oxford: Blackwell. Dawkins, Richard. 2009. The God Delusion. Random House. Dennett, Daniel Clement. 2006. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. No. 14. Penguin. Dinham, Adam, Robert Furbey, and Vivien Lowndes. 2008. “Faith in the Public Realm.” Faith in the public realm: Controversies, policies and practices, 1–20. Engelke, Matthew. 2013. God’s Agents: Biblical Publicity in Contemporary England. Vol. 15. Univ of California Press. Hargreaves, Rev. George. February 5, 2009.“Our Answer to the Atheists,” The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/feb/05/religion-christiani ty-christian-bus-ads (accessed March 31, 2009).

UNITED KINGDOM: ALL PUBLICITY IS GOOD PUBLICITY, PROBABLY

365

Harris, Sam. 2005. The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. WW ­Norton & Company. Heelas, Paul, Linda Woodhead, Benjamin Seel, Karin Tusting, and Bronislaw Szerszynski. 2005. The Spiritual Revolution: Why Religion is Giving Way to Spirituality. Blackwell. Herrick, Jim. 1982. Vision and Realism: A hundred years of The Freethinker. GW Foote. Holyoake, George Jacob. 1871. The Principles of Secularism Illustrated. Book store, 232 Strand. Hughes, Stuart. February 4, 2009. “The Greatest Motivational Poster Ever?” BBC News Magazine. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7869458.stm (accessed May 12, 2014). Kettell, Steven.2013. “Faithless: The politics of new atheism.” Secularism and Nonreligion 2: 61–72. Knott, Kim, Elizabeth Poole, and Teemu Taira. 2013. Media Portrayals of Religion and the Secular Sacred: Representation and Change. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Kosmin, Barry. 2005. “Interview: The Subjects are Secular” Free inquiry 25 New York:  Council for Secular Humanism. http://www.trincoll.edu/NR/rdonlyres/ 9A8BD2D4-D1BE-4462-BD73-DFDB5D59F0DA/0/KosminInterview_Layout1.pdf (accessed March 3, 2009). Kosmin, Barry. A. and Ariella Keysar. 2008. Summary Report: American Self Identification Survey. Trinity College: Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society ad Culture. http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/ reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf (accessed March 3, 2009). Lang, Mrs Justice. March 22, 2013. “Core Issues Trust v. Transport for London.” EWHC 651. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/ Judgments/core-issues-trust-v-tfl.pdf (accessed July 17, 2014). Lee, Lois. (forthcoming). “Vehicles of New Atheism: The Atheist Bus Campaign, Nonreligious Representations and Material Culture.” In New Atheism’s Legacy: Critical Perspectives from Philosophy and the Social Sciences, edited by Christopher Cotter and Philip Quadrio. Dordrecht: Springer. In press. Lee, Lois. 2011. “Being Secular: Towards Separate Sociologies of Secularity, Nonreligion and Epistemological Culture.” Lee, Lois. 2012. “Research note: Talking About a Revolution: Terminology for the New Field of Non-religion Studies.” Journal of Contemporary Religion 27: 129–139. Lynch, Gordon, Jolyon Mitchell, and Anna Strhan, eds. 2012. Religion, Media and Culture: A Reader. Routledge. Malik, Kenan. “Beyond the Sacred.” January 29, 2012. http://kenanmalik.wordpress. com/2012/01/29/beyond-the-sacred/ (accessed August 12, 2013). Malik, Kenan. 2012. From Fatwa to Jihad: The Rushdie Affair and its Legacy. Atlantic Monthly.

366

ASTON

Marquand, Robert. January 16, 2009. “As atheists roll out London ads, believers unruffled” The Christian Science Monitor. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/ 2009/0116/p01s04-woeu.html (accessed July 14, 2014). Meyer, Birgit, and Annelies Moors, eds. 2006. Religion, media, and the public sphere. Indiana University Press. Nagata, Judith. 2001. “Beyond theology: Toward an anthropology of ‘fundamentalism’.” American Anthropologist 103.2: 481–498. Naghibi, Nima. 1999. “Bad feminist or Bad-Hejabi? Moving outside the Hejab debate.” Interventions: international journal of postcolonial studies 1.4: 555–571. Nandy, Ashis. 1990. “The politics of secularism and the recovery of religious tolerance.” In Alternatives: Global, Local, Political. 13. 2: 177–194. Office for National Statistics (ONS). December 11, 2012. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/ dcp171776_290510.pdf (accessed July 15, 2014). Ribeiro, Celina. February 26, 2009. “Christians Respond to ‘Atheist Bus’ Campaign.” Civil Society.org. http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/fundraising/news/content/892/ christians_respond_to_at heist_bus_campaign#.U8TZpdq9KSM (accessed July 10, 2014). Royle, Edward. Radical politics, 1790–1900: religion and unbelief. Vol. 2. Longman ­Publishing Group, 1971. Royle Edward. Victorian infidels: the origins of the British secularist movement, 1791–1866. Manchester University Press; 1974. Royle, Edward. Radicals, Secularists, and Republicans: Popular Freethought in Britain, 1866–1915. Manchester University Press, 1980. Schwartz, Laura. Infidel Feminism: Secularism, religion and women’s emancipation, England 1830–1914. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2013. Sherine, Ariane. June 20, 2008. “Atheists: Gimmie Five.” The Guardian: CiF. http://www .theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jun/20/transport.religion (accessed July 17, 2014). Sherine, Ariane. October 21, 2009a. “All Aboard the ‘Atheist Bus’ Campaign.” The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/oct/21/religion-advertising (accessed July 17, 2014). Sherine, Ariane. February 16, 2009b. “Freedom of Speech” Transcript of Thought For the World’s thought for the day. http://hassers.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/ariane-sherine -freedom-of-speech.html (accessed July 17, 2014). Sims, Paul. March 11, 2009. “Atheist Complaints Make Christian Bus Ad 4th Most Complained About of all Time.” New Humanist Blog, http://blog.newhumanist.org. uk/2009/03/atheist-complaints-make-christian-bus.html (accessed July 10, 2014). Sims, Paul. January 6, 2009. “Atheist Bus’es Finally on the Road.” New Humanist Blog. http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2009/01/atheist-buses-finally-on-road.html ­(accessed February 18, 2014).

UNITED KINGDOM: ALL PUBLICITY IS GOOD PUBLICITY, PROBABLY

367

Smith, Christopher, and Richard Cimino. 2012. “Atheisms Unbound: The Role of the New Media in the formation of a secularist identity.” Secularism and Nonreligion 1.1: 17–31. Strhan, Anna. 2012. “Discipleship and Desire: Conservative Evangelicals, Coherence and the Moral Lives of the Metropolis.” PhD dissertation. University of Kent. Sweney, Mark. February 5, 2009. “Let There be Adverts: Christians hit Back at the ‘Atheist Bus’.” The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/feb/05/ atheist-bus-christian-response (accessed July 15, 2014). Tarlo, Emma. 2010. Visibly Muslim: Fashion, Politics, Faith. Berg. Taylor, George Herbert. 1957. A Chronology of British Secularism. GH Taylor. National Secular Society. Taylor, Charles. 2007. A Secular Age. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Theos, 2009. “Religious think tank welcomes launch of atheist buses.” January 6. http:// www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2009/01/06/religious-think-tank- welcomeslaunch-of-atheist-buses#sthash.Czg2vXXN.dpuf (accessed June 18, 2014). Topham, Lawrence. January 9, 2009. “All Aboard the ‘Atheist Bus’ Campaign”. The Guardian. Guardian Video. Doi: http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2009/ jan/06/atheist-bus. Trilling, Daniel. 2013. “How to Talk about Religion.” New Humanist 128.5. Voas, David. 2009. “The Rise and Fall of Fuzzy Fidelity in Europe.” European Sociological Review 25.2: 155–168. Walker, Peter. January 16, 2009. “Christian Refuses to Drive Bus with Atheist Advertisement.” The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jan/16/atheism -christian-advertisements-buses (accessed July 15, 2014). Wolf, Gary. November 2006. Wired Magazine. 14. http://www.wired.com/wired/ archive/14.11/atheism.html (accessed February 18, 2014). Woodhead, Linda, and Rebecca Catto, eds. 2012. Religion and Change in Modern Britain. Routledge 2012. Worth, Jon. March 4, 2009. “The Power of the Image: Reflections on the ‘Atheist Bus’ Campaign.” http://www.jonworth.eu/the-power-of-the-image-reflections-on-the-atheist -bus-campaign/ (accessed May 12, 2014). YouGov. March 2011. “Poll Conducted on Behalf of the BHA,” https://humanism.org .uk/campaigns/religion-and-belief-some-surveys-and-statistics/ (accessed July 15, 2014).

Websites

Pledgebank http://www.pledgebank.com/atheistbus (accessed June 10, 2014). British Humanist Association http://www.humanism.org.uk/home (accessed June 10, 2014).

368

ASTON

The National Secular Society http://www.secularism.org.uk/about.html (accessed June 10, 2014). JustGiving http://www.justgiving.com/atheistbus (accessed June 10, 2014). Atheist Campaign: Official Website of the ‘Atheist Bus’ Campaign http://www .atheistbus.org.uk/atheism/ (accessed June 10, 2014).

chapter 16

United States of America: Secularist, Humanist, Atheist, and Freethought Bus Advertisements in the United States; Functions, Responses, and Effectiveness Casey P. Homan, Marcus Mann and Ryan T. Cragun 16.1 Introduction Since 2008, national and local atheist and secular humanist groups in the United States have launched advertising campaigns promoting their organizations on public buses in many of the nation’s largest cities. How have these events unfolded? Why have they unfolded in that way? And what additional insights do we gain regarding the broader secularist, humanist, atheist, and freethought – henceforth referred to as “shaf”1 – movement from studying these events? Those are the chief questions we attempt to answer, or at least to begin answering, in this chapter about the atheist bus advertising campaigns in the United States. This chapter analyzes ad campaigns running anytime from 2008 to the end of 2013. Altogether, we analyze 41 campaigns in 23 cities during the 2008–2013 period, as well as two cities where a campaign was attempted but never implemented. In this chapter, we first provide some brief background information about the bus ad campaigns and then report on and interpret legal responses to those campaigns. After that, we analyze the functions of the campaigns – that is, we ask why they occurred. In that part of the analysis, we find Robert Merton’s theory of the functions of social actions to be particularly useful. Next, we focus on a theme that became salient as we studied the ad campaigns: the tension between religious pluralism and its opposite – what we call “religious exclusivity.” This theme runs deeply through both the ads themselves and the public’s response to the ads. After examining this theme, we provide a brief analysis of the ad campaigns as a social movement. The ad campaigns easily lend themselves to examination as a social movement, part of the larger movement of shaf organizations. Because of a shortage of space, in investigating the campaigns as a social movement we focus mostly on applying one highly 1 “shaf” is not an official acronym at present.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004328532_017

370

HOMAN, MANN AND CRAGUN

relevant and influential theory: what sociologists sometimes call “framing processes.” We end with a brief conclusion. 16.1.1 Background There were atheist billboard advertisements that preceded the bus ads in the United States; as is the case with the bus advertising, billboard advertising remains a viable strategy for shaf groups today. In 2007, the Freedom From Religion Foundation began advertising with billboards carrying messages skeptical of religion, such as “Beware of Dogma” (Madison, Wisconsin).2 That was not the first time that an atheist group had advertised in the United States,3 but it was the beginning of a spate of advertisements on billboards and buses – advertisements that have continued through the present. In 2008, the Freedom From Religion Foundation continued advertising on billboards, and other organizations created their own billboard ads, such as one placed by the American Humanist Association in early 2008 that read, “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone” (Ridgefield, New Jersey). The growing interest in public advertising led the American Humanist Association to launch an ad campaign in Washington, dc, during the 2008 Christmas season. Because billboards are not allowed in dc, the organization opted instead to advertise on buses. We believe that this was the first instance of shaf bus advertising in the United States. While the American Humanist Association was contemplating its Christmas season campaign in the summer of 2008, London resident Ariane Sherine began planning what would eventually become the widely publicized London atheist bus campaign (see Chapter 15 in this volume); she made that decision in response to a Christian bus advertisement that directed people to a website warning nonbelievers that they would be tormented in hell. In October 2008, Sherine began to raise money for the London atheist bus campaign, whose banner was to read, “There’s Probably no God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life.” In November 2008, the American Humanist Association’s first bus ad appeared: a picture of a shrugging Santa Claus and text that read, “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake.” The ad included the American 2 Throughout this chapter we note the location of advertising campaigns in parentheses following the mention of the campaign. 3 O’Hair, Madalyn Murray. 1989. An Atheist Epic: The Complete Unexpurgated Story of How Bible and Prayers Were Removed from the Public Schools of the United States. 2nd edition. Austin, Tex: American Atheist Press.; O’Hair, Madalyn Murray. 1989. Freedom under Siege: The Impact of Organized Religion on Your Liberty and Your Pocketbook. Cranford, New Jersey: American Atheist Press First.; Personal communication with Frank R. Zindler. February 21, 2014. “Aerial Advertizing.”

USA: SECULARIST, HUMANIST, ATHEIST, AND FREETHOUGHT

371

Humanist Association url and telephone number. A couple of months later – in January 2009 – buses in England began to display Sherine’s ad. Following the London and dc bus ads, organizations in other u.s. cities soon initiated their own campaigns. The Freedom From Religion Foundation began displaying banners on buses in Madison, Wisconsin, in February 2009, and during the same month the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association began to run streetcar ads in New Orleans. That same year, shaf organizations ran bus ads in Boston, Chicago, New York City, Portland, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, and in several smaller cities as well. Since 2009, dozens of bus advertisement campaigns have taken place throughout the United States. Several cities have had two or more campaigns from 2008 through 2013. Washington, dc – the city with the largest number of campaigns – had nine different campaigns split among four different supporting organizations during the 2008–2013 period. The rapidity with which the bus advertisement campaigns spread across the United States seems somewhat surprising when first considered. However, most of these campaigns were undertaken and funded by national shaf organizations, such as the American Humanist Association, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, American Atheists, and the United Coalition of Reason. That these campaigns were undertaken by large, national organizations underscores the importance of resource mobilization in social movement activism: resources – even more than factors such as the drive to succeed – matter in determining whether a social movement is successful.4 16.2

Legal Responses

In most us cities the bus advertisement campaigns have met little or no legal resistance. In two cities, however, resistance to the ads prevented them from appearing. In yet other instances the resistance ironically benefitted the campaigns by generating publicity. According to constitutional law in the United States, a state actor must remain viewpoint neutral in regulating speech.5 Therefore, if a transit agency allows advertisements within a category such as religion or politics, it cannot allow some ads within the category while forbidding others. For example, a transit agency that chooses to accept ads promoting 4 McCarthy, John D., and Mayer N. Zald. 1977. “Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory.” American Journal of Sociology 82: 1212–1241. 5 Chemerinsky, Erwin. 2006. Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies Aspen Publishers, New York, New York.

372

HOMAN, MANN AND CRAGUN

Christianity would be required to accept ads promoting atheism or humanism as well. Of course, transit agencies and other organizations can still employ other standards that influence which ads are accepted and which are not, such as standards excluding obscene language. For the 2008–2013 period, we found eight cities where shaf advertising campaigns encountered considerable resistance. The next subsection outlines, in chronological order, the main legal issues in those cities. 16.2.1 Cities Where Legal Issues Have Arisen In spring 2009, a request was made to the Greater Lynchburg Transit Company of Lynchburg, Virginia, to place a banner on buses that would say, “Don’t believe in a Supreme Being? You are not alone.” However, the transit company cited a 2007 decision not to allow ads for any special-interest groups, personal causes, or political campaigns. According to the Richmond Times Dispatch, however, no such vote was actually recorded in 2007.6 After the request for the atheist bus ad, the transit company voted and made the stated policy official. The Greater Lynchburg Transit Company’s buses include the campus shuttle for Liberty University, a Christian college founded by Jerry Falwell.7 In the end, no atheist bus ads appeared in Lynchurg. Also in the spring of 2009, a local shaf organization created specifically for advertising on buses – the Indiana Atheist Bus Campaign – attempted to have ad banners displayed on buses in South Bend, Indiana, to coincide with President Obama’s visit to deliver Notre Dame’s commencement address. The bus company stated that it needed to have a board meeting in order to make a decision about the advertising. The ad, which read, “You can be good without God,” eventually was put on buses, but not in time for the President’s visit. During that same spring, the Indiana Atheist Bus Campaign was attempting to place identical banners on buses in Bloomington, Indiana, as well. Bloomington’s transportation agency rejected the ads, calling them “controversial.”8 The American Civil Liberties Union (aclu) of Indiana then filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Indiana Atheist Bus Campaign. According to the settlement reached in July 2009, the transportation agency would reimburse the aclu of 6 Petska, Alicia. “Lynchburg bus firm rejects anti-religion ad; The process leads gltc to revisit its advertising policy,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, April 5, 2009, p. B-08. 7 Whether the influence of Liberty University directly or indirectly prevented the ads from appearing, we do not know. 8 “After Lawsuit Settlement, Indiana Atheist Bus Campaign Ads ‘You Can be Good without God’ Appear on Bloomington Buses.” August 10, 2009. Press release. http://atheistbillboards. com/2009/08/you-can-be-good-without-god/.

USA: SECULARIST, HUMANIST, ATHEIST, AND FREETHOUGHT

373

Indiana for part of their legal fees and the ad could be shown on buses. In August, the ad finally made it onto Bloomington buses. That same month, buses in Des Moines, Iowa, began to display a bus ad saying, “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone.” After only three days, Des Moines’ transit agency removed the banners because of an “overwhelming” number of complaints.9 With help from the aclu, the organization behind the ad – Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers (with support from the United Coalition of Reason) – convinced the transit agency to put the ad banners back up. It was the transit agency that paid to have the banners reproduced. Four months later, in December 2009, Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers initiated a second ad campaign in Des Moines, with the message “Being good for goodness’ sake.” The organization did not encounter any notable difficulty the second time around. The city that received the most national news coverage because of atheist bus ads was Fort Worth, Texas. The organization that financed the ads in Fort Worth – the DallasFort Worth Coalition of Reason – had only enough funds to place banners on four Fort Worth buses. The banners appeared in December 2010, with the message, “Millions of Americans are good without God.” Some local ministers became determined to boycott the buses upon hearing about the forthcoming campaign. When the ad appeared, they followed through with their plan. Some local Christians argued that the fact that the advertisement appeared around Christmas made it an attack on their religion.10 One local religious group paid for a billboard truck to follow one of the buses with its own ads that read, “2.1 Billion People are Good With God” and “I still love you. – God,”11 and another religious group put up a banner asking, “What if there really is a God?” on the rear panel of a bus with the atheist ad. In mid-December, the Fort Worth Transportation authority decided to ban all advertising with a message related to religion.12

9 10

11

12

who-hd news broadcast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRNMDByIZfA (accessed May 25, 2014). “Atheists Don’t Need God, So Pastors Don’t Need Buses.” cbs dfw. December 2, 2010. http:// dfw.cbslocal.com/2010/12/02/bus-billboards-say-atheists-good-without-god/(accessed May 25, 2014). “‘God’s Message’ Follows Ft. Worth Atheist Bus Ads.” cbn News. December 10, 2010. http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2010/December/Gods-Message-Follows-Ft-Worth -Atheist-Bus-Ads-/. Dickson, Gordon. “Religious ads banned from Fort Worth Buses.” Star-Telegram. ­December 16, 2010. http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/12/15/2708144/religious-ads-banned-from -fort.html?rh=1 (accessed May 25, 2014).

374

HOMAN, MANN AND CRAGUN

In the fall of 2011, the Spokane Coalition of Reason wanted to advertise in Spokane, Washington, but experienced minor resistance to an ad that said, “Are you good without God? Millions are.” The Spokane Transit Authority accepted the ad, telling the press that the agency could not limit free speech. The advertising agency, in contrast, refused the ad, saying that it could be harmful or offensive. However, a lawyer from the United Coalition of Reason sent a public disclosure request, asking to see what other organizations had been denied the opportunity to advertise on Spokane buses and why. The advertising vendor then switched course and produced the banner.13 As was the case in Fort Worth, there was a considerable amount of media coverage concerning atheist bus ads in Little Rock, Arkansas. Buses in Little Rock carried the same message as buses in Spokane: “Are you good without God? Millions are.” The Central Arkansas Coalition of Reason attempted to time the ads to coincide with a festival that was to be held in May 2011. The transportation agency did not reject the ads outright, but demanded a deposit of $36,000 because of the possibility of “a terroristic act, such as tossing a Molotov Cocktail” (in the words of the vendor’s attorney).14 According to Fred Edwords, who is the national director of the United Coalition of Reason and who has helped place many billboard and bus ads, vandalism to shaf advertisements has never cost near that much.15 In an email to the media broker handling the campaign, the advertising vendor wrote, “Arkansas is the buckle of the Bible Belt and I can easily envision zealots or upstanding citizens with a strong faith acting out.”16 The United Coalition of Reason filed a lawsuit, and in August a judge granted a preliminary injunction. The judge did require a $15,000 deposit, but that money was eventually returned to the Central Arkansas Coalition of Reason. The ads finally appeared on buses in October 2011. Lastly, in late 2013 the Pittsburgh Coalition of Reason attempted to start an ad campaign in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, with the message, “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone.” The local transportation agency rejected the ad, citing a policy against religious advertising. Following that decision, the United Coalition of Reason filed a lawsuit. In July 2014, it was reported that the transportation 13 14

15 16

“Atheist Ads to Run on sta Buses?” khq Q6. July 21, 2011. http://www.khq.com/ story/15122188/atheist-ads-to-run-on-sta-buses (accessed May 25, 2014). Brantley, Max. “Atheists Sue over Refusal of Bus Ad,” Arkansas Times, June 1, 2011. http:// www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2011/06/01/atheists-sue-over-refusal-of-bus -ad (accessed August 12, 2014). Edwords, Fred. Interview by Marcus Mann. February 24, 2014. Brantley, “Atheists Sue over Refusal of Bus Ad.”

USA: SECULARIST, HUMANIST, ATHEIST, AND FREETHOUGHT

375

agency had settled the lawsuit, agreeing to disburse $40,000 in legal fees and $20,000 in damages to the United Coalition of Reason.17 16.2.2 Interpreting the Legal Issues Involving the Ads From 2008 to the end of 2013 there were bus campaigns in twenty-three cities, with legal issues in six of those twenty-three cities and two cities where a campaign was attempted but never implemented. On the whole, therefore, legal issues arose only a minority of the time, but it was a substantial minority. Fred Edwords believes that the climate in recent years has been ideal for atheist advertising.18 According to Edwords, a few decades ago the idea of rejecting religion was too taboo for widespread public advertising to make much of an impact. Despite public antipathy towards atheism, there was some advertising in the 1980s. For instance, American Atheists ran a “dial an atheist” campaign in print and electronic media (as well as on a banner flown behind a plane in Ohio) that directed people to a phone number leading to a recorded message about atheism.19 At the peak of the advertisement campaign, the “dial an atheist” messages were so popular that those running the campaign had to invest in multiple answering machines to handle the calls received. The growing acceptance of shaf worldviews is arguably a manifestation of secularization.20 In the last twenty to twenty-five years in the United States, the percentage of the population that does not identify with any religion has more than doubled,21 and this growth has been accompanied by an increased acceptance of atheism.22 Just as the religious mainstream in the United States, which originally was Protestant, has widened over time to include Catholicism,

17

18 19 20 21

22

“Port Authority settles suit over atheism ads.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, July 3, 2014. http:// www.post-gazette.com/local/region/2014/07/04/Port-Authority-settles-suit-over-atheism -ads/stories/201407040024. Edwords, Fred. Interview by Marcus Mann. February 24, 2014. Zindler, Frank R. 2011. Through Atheist Eyes: Scenes From a World That Won’t Reason. Volume iv: Omnium-Gatherum. Cranford, New Jersey: American Atheist Press. Bruce, Steve. 2002. God Is Dead: Secularization in the West. London: Blackwell Publishers. Kosmin, Barry A., ArielaKeysar, Ryan T. Cragun, and Juhem Navarro-Rivera. 2009. ­American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population. Hartford, ct: Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture. Jones, Jeffrey M. 2012. “Atheists, Muslims See Most Bias as Presidential Candidates.” ­gallup. com, accessed May 24, 2014 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/155285/Atheists-­Muslims-Bias -Presidential-Candidates.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_ campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Election%202012%20-%20 Politics%20-%20Religion).

376

HOMAN, MANN AND CRAGUN

Judaism, and other religions,23 as the nonreligious segment of the population grows, atheists themselves may gain broader acceptance. A good illustration of the growing acceptance of the nonreligious comes from President Barack Obama’s first inauguration speech, in which he said, “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers.” That is not to suggest that atheists and other nonbelievers will be embraced by the mainstream anytime soon; atheists remain strongly disliked by many people.24 Current levels of prejudice against atheism may, in fact, be facilitating the efforts of the various advertising campaigns. If atheism were widely accepted, the campaigns would receive little attention. But if atheism were still completely taboo, there would have been no campaign: in an environment where the great majority of people are repelled by the idea of atheism, such a campaign probably would be very unsuccessful and therefore would not be worth executing. Thus, when Fred Edwords suggested the climate is ideal for advertising at the moment, it is likely because, in general, atheism is edgy enough to create controversy but not so controversial as to render atheist advertising infeasible. When journalists cover atheist advertising, there are many more people who see or hear the message of the ads in news reports than who actually view the ads on a bus or elsewhere – especially when negative reactions to the ads have made it possible for the media to center their story on controversy. Ironically, then, on a number of occasions resistance to the ads has made it possible for shaf organizations to take legal action, generating more interest from the news media and working more effectively toward the actual goal of the ads – to reach a large number of people with their message. For example, in Bloomington, Fort Worth, South Bend, Spokane, and Little Rock, the legal issues were highlighted in national and local news stories. Resistance to the ads probably has not aided the shaf movement in e­ very case. As noted earlier, the ad campaigns in Lynchburg, Virginia, and P ­ ittsburgh, Pennsylvania, never took place because of policies barring advertising that advocates any point of view regarding religion. Although in Fort Worth the ads did appear and resistance to the ads generated a great deal of publicity, the ­final decision in Fort Worth was the same – to ban all advertising ­advocating 23 24

Alba, Richard, and Victor Nee. 2003. Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration. Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press. Cragun, Ryan T., Patrick Henry, Casey P. Homan, and Joseph Hammer. 2012. “Whom Do People Dislike More: Atheists or Cultists?” Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on R ­ eligion 8: 1–19. See also Edgell, Penny, Joseph Gerteis, and Douglas Hartmann. 2006. “Atheists as ‘Other’: Moral Boundaries and Cultural Membership in American Society.” American S­ ociological Review 71: 211–234.

USA: SECULARIST, HUMANIST, ATHEIST, AND FREETHOUGHT

377

for or against religion. Critical and feminist scholarship suggests that forbidding the expression of any point of view on a given issue privileges the hegemonic point of view, because it prevents the hegemon from being challenged.25 The dominant view has much less of a need to be advertised, because it is already widespread. Similar to the way that media coverage of sports reinforces hegemonic masculinity by spending a disproportionate amount of time on men’s sports while paying little attention to women’s sports,26 suppressing advertising related to religion may affect those promoting nonreligious messages more than those promoting religious messages as it prevents challenges to dominant ideas about religiosity in the United States. 16.3

Functions of the Advertising Campaigns

Sociologist Robert Merton is well known for his theory of the different types of functions that social actions can have.27 A manifest function is consciously intended and expected, whereas a latent function is not consciously intended or expected. Merton gives the example of a rain dance, which has a manifest function of invoking rain and a latent function of strengthening solidarity. In the United States, the atheist bus advertisements have had a number of manifest functions and likely some latent functions as well. The reason that shaf organizations most often give for the bus ads is to send a positive message to atheists. One such message is that atheists do not need to feel isolated. Examples of such ads are “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone” (Des Moines, Iowa, and Detroit, Michigan), “Don’t believe in a God? Join the Club” (Washington, dc), “Doubts about Religion? You’re one of many” (Washington, dc), and “Are you good without God? Millions of Americans are” (Little Rock, Arkansas; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Portland, Oregon; and Spokane, Washington). Most of the bus ads have included a website and/or a phone number of a shaf organization so that people who are interested are able to find like-minded people. Very much in line with this first manifest 25

26 27

Brown, David. 1999. “Complicity and Reproduction in Teaching Physical Education.” Sport, Education and Society 4(2):143–159.; Connell, R.W., and James W. Messerschmidt. 2005. “Hegemonic Masculinity Rethinking the Concept.” Gender & Society 19(6): 829–859.; Craig, Steve. Men, Masculinity, and the Media. Newbury Park: sage Publications, Inc., 1992. Messner, Michael A. Power at Play: Sports and the Problem of Masculinity. Boston: Beacon Press, 1995. Merton, Robert. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The Free Press, 1968. See Chapter 3.

378

HOMAN, MANN AND CRAGUN

function, the director of the United Coalition of Reason has been very explicit in stating, “The point of this […] campaign is to reach out to the millions of humanists, atheists and agnostics living in the United States. […] We hope this will serve as a beacon and let them know they aren’t alone.”28 Another positive message that some ads have sent to atheists is the idea that atheists do not need God in order to be happy or to feel confident in their sense of morality or purpose in life. The original advertisement in London conveyed that message in stating, “There’s Probably no God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life.” In the United States, banners have declared, “No God? No problem! Be good for goodness’ sake” (Washington, dc), or simply stated, “­Being good for goodness’ sake” (Des Moines, Iowa). Another campaign featured “testimony” from real atheists, such as one person who asserted, “I don’t need a God to be happy” (Madison, Wisconsin). These testimonies also encouraged atheists to come out of the closet by showing real people who are atheists. For instance, the actress Julia Sweeney quipped in one advertisement, “OMG, there is no God!” One of the manifest functions of these testimonies is clear in the name of the campaign: “Out of the Closet.” The second manifest function of the bus ads is to convey the message to non-atheists that atheists are numerous and that they can be just as happy and moral as other people. For example, one series of ads showed groups of four people accompanied by the (inaccurate) text, “1 in 4 is an atheist” (Seattle, Washington).29 The previously cited ad “Are you good without God? Millions of Americans are” also fulfills this second manifest function, as do similar versions of the message, such as “Millions of Americans are good without God” (Forth Worth, Texas) and “Millions of Americans are living happily without religion” (Washington, dc). These ads reminding atheists that they can feel confident in their morality also can be read as communicating a similar message to non-atheists. Other ads that attempted to explain that people do not need God to have moral and meaningful lives include “You don’t need God – to hope, to care, to love, to live” (Washington, dc), “You don’t have to believe in God to be a moral or ethical person” (New York, New York), and banners 28 29

“Godless Ads Now on Portland Buses.” November 17, 2009. Press release. http://atheistbillboards.com/2009/11/are-you-good-without-god-millions-are-7/. It became clear from the media and public scrutiny of these ads that the group behind the ads, Seattle Atheists, was referring to the statistic that one in four Washingtonians do not identify with any particular religion; it is clear that many who do not identify with a religion still believe in God. In one television interview, a Seattle Atheists board member conceded, “We are using a broader definition than most people do for the word ‘atheist’; that’s certainly true.”

USA: SECULARIST, HUMANIST, ATHEIST, AND FREETHOUGHT

379

s­ howcasing the charitable giving of Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, stating that each man is “good without God” and asking, “Are you?” (Champaign, Illinois). Some of the people affiliated with the ads have made statements supporting this second manifest function. For example, a member of Seattle Atheists said, “Atheists are pretty much like everyone else. They’re… people who take pride in their work, love their families, and appreciate the great things about America, just like religious people.”30 Similarly, a spokesperson from the Portland Coalition of Reason stated, “We want people to understand that humanists, freethinkers, agnostics and atheists are essentially like everyone else,”31 and the director of the American Humanist Association noted, “We want to change the way people think and talk about nontheists, and to pave the way for acceptance of humanism as a valid and positive philosophy of life.”32 Why do these freethinking organizations find it necessary to repeatedly make the case that atheism is not inherently immoral or amoral? As noted earlier, studies consistently show that atheists are some of the most disliked people in the United States,33 with just over 50 percent of Americans now reporting they would vote for an atheist for President, a substantial increase since the 1950s when the figure was less than 20 percent.34 A growing body of research has shown that prejudice against atheists is tied to distrust.35 That is, there are many people who believe that, if a person does not believe in God, 30

Pulkkinen, Levi, “1 in 4 an atheist? Probably not,” Seattle Post-Intelligencer, December 13, 2011. http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/1-in-4-an-atheist-Probably-not-2400965.php. 31 “Godless Ads Now on Portland Buses.” November 17, 2009. Press release. http://­ atheistbillboards.com/2009/11/are-you-good-without-god-millions-are-7/. 32 “Humanists Launch First-Ever National Godless Holiday Campaign.” November 23, 2009. Press release. http://atheistbillboards.com/2009/11/no-god-no-problem-be-good-for-good ness-sake/. 33 Cragun, Ryan T., Patrick Henry, Casey P. Homan, and Joseph Hammer. 2012. “Whom Do People Dislike More: Atheists or Cultists?” Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion 8: 1–19. See also Edgell, Penny, Joseph Gerteis, and Douglas Hartmann. 2006. “Atheists as ‘Other’: Moral Boundaries and Cultural Membership in American Society.” American Sociological Review 71: 211–234. 34 Bowman, Karlyn, Norman Ornstein, Michael Barone, and Henry Olsen. 2012. aei Political Report: A Monthly Poll Compilation. Washington, d.c.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Retrieved May 13, 2014 (http://www.aei.org/files/2012/07/19/-aei -political-report-july-2012_153833688607.pdf). 35 Gervais, Will M. 2011. “Finding the Faithless: Perceived Atheist Prevalence Reduces AntiAtheist Prejudice.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 37(4):543–556.; Gervais, Will M., Azim F. Shariff, and AraNorenzayan. 2011. “Do You Believe in Atheists? Distrust Is Central to Anti-Atheist Prejudice.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101(6):1189–1206.

380

HOMAN, MANN AND CRAGUN

then he or she is less likely to feel responsible to a higher power and therefore more likely to behave selfishly. Advertising that humanizes atheists and portrays them as trustworthy may result in lower levels of prejudice. Advertising is not the only social force that may increase the vitality of shaf organizations and nonbelievers in general. Ironically, the considerable challenge of gaining public acceptance also might energize them. Christian Smith has argued that one of the greatest sources of strength for American evangelicals is their common belief that they are an embattled group in society. Though they feel embattled, evangelicals generally do not retreat from society but instead engage with it. Smith writes, “The evangelical movement… flourishes on difference, engagement, tension, conflict, and threat.”36 Similarly, shaf organizations may flourish as a result of individual atheists and freethinkers sensing conflict and tension with society. When atheists and freethinkers perceive tension, they may turn to social movement organizations to provide them with a sense of identity and camaraderie, which in turn bolsters the membership and strength of shaf organizations. One of the sources of tension between nonbelievers and mainstream society is violations of the separation of church and state. Thus, it is not surprising that a few of the bus ads have the manifest function of advocating for ­church– state separation. For example, some advertisements have made straightforward demands to keep church and state separate, such as “Keep religion OUT of government” (Kent, Ohio) and “God and government: a dangerous mix; keep church and state separate” (Washington, dc). These church-and-state ads were part of a campaign by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, an organization whose chief objective is to promote the separation of church and state. A spokesperson from the foundation made clear the function of this advertising campaign: “We are seeking to lay to rest that dangerous revisionist myth that the United States is a ‘Christian nation’.”37 Astute readers may be wondering whether these campaigns also included a manifest effort to convert people to nonbelief. The many messages we observed as part of the campaign suggest this was a latent function or at most a marginal component of the campaigns. For example, one ad stated, “In the beginning, man created God” (Chicago, Illinois). Another set of ads comprised quotations from famous atheists such as Mark Twain and Butterfly McQueen, with the former asserting, “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so,” (­Chicago, Illinois, 36 37

Smith, Christian. 1998. American Evangelicalism: Embattled and Thriving. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. See page 153 especially. “Bus sign notes America is not a Christian nation.” September 2, 2011. Press release. http:// atheistbillboards.com/2011/09/the-united-states-is-not-founded-2/.

USA: SECULARIST, HUMANIST, ATHEIST, AND FREETHOUGHT

381

and Madison, Wisconsin) and the latter declaring, “As my ancestors are free from slavery, I am free from the slavery of religion” (Chicago, Illinois; Madison, Wisconsin; and Washington, dc). The ads cited in this paragraph are among the most explicitly critical of religion of all the ads we examined as part of the campaign. Even so, many of the other ads quoted in this chapter also could be viewed as latent efforts at proselytizing, given that they implicitly suggest that it is okay to be nonreligious or a nonbeliever. The latent nature of any proselytizing components of the ads is supported by the positions taken by the organizations behind the ads, which have never stated explicitly that they are attempting to increase the number of atheists. In fact, some of these organizations have asserted the opposite. For instance, in 2009 the president of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association said, “We don’t proselytize,”38 and the director of the American Humanist Association declared that the goal “is to attract the interest of those who already believe as we do. We’re not trying to convert people.”39 Additional evidence that there may have been a latent effort to proselytize comes from a campaign tellingly called “Consider Humanism.” This campaign paired draconian Bible verses with more modern-sounding quotations from humanists on the same topic (for example, a Biblical call to violence paired with a humanist’s call for peace). Whether or not there is a latent goal of leading people away from belief in God or religion, the ads might have led some people in that direction. Moving from believing in God to not believing tends to be a slow, incremental process,40 and it is conceivable that seeing a bus advertisement could serve as one of many steps on the path to atheism. Of course, it is not possible to know the intentions or motivations of the creators of these advertisements other than those intentions and motivations explicitly stated in interviews and press releases. It is important to remember, however, that the atheist bus ads in the United States have not been conducted by a unitary actor. Many different shaf organizations have run bus ad campaigns, and it is very likely that the organizations’ aims have varied. The next section of this chapter examines how the ads differed in their tone, looks into 38 “rta gives ads its blessing.” January 31, 2009. Press release. http://atheistbillboards .com/2009/01/dont-believe-in-god-you-are-not-alone-27/. 39 Gray, Steven, “Is God Dead? Or Just Not Riding the Bus?” Time, May 28, 2009. http://­ content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1901301,00.html. 40 Smith, Jesse M. 2011. “Becoming an Atheist in America: Constructing Identity and Meaning from the Rejection of Theism.” Sociology of Religion 72(2): 215–237.

382

HOMAN, MANN AND CRAGUN

how the public’s response to the ads has differed, and offers some thoughts on why these differences may exist. 16.4

Religious Pluralism vs. Exclusivity in the Ad Campaigns

Although it might be tempting to frame the controversies over the bus ads as legal manifestations of a broader conflict between atheism and Christianity in American culture, the data we have collected suggest that this is too simplistic an interpretation and that the controversy engendered by these ads is not easily split down religious/nonreligious lines. The evidence against bringing such a reading to bear on these bus ad campaigns and the public response to them is available to us in two parts. First, although some people have interpreted the ads as aggressive and hostile, the fact remains that the ads have tended to focus on reaching out to atheists and only occasionally have directly critiqued religion. Second, the public response to these ad campaigns, at least as reflected in news coverage on television, in newspapers, and online, suggests that the primary factor differentiating people who responded favorably to the ads and people who responded unfavorably is not whether they are religious or irreligious. Rather, the main divide seems to be between advocates of religious pluralism – who generally view the wide range of religious and irreligious perspectives as either neutral or beneficial for society – and exclusivists, or antipluralists, who do not hold that view. Pluralists, many of whom are Christian or otherwise religious, tend to regard atheist advertising as just one more voice in a multi-vocal country. In the bus ads themselves, but even more so in the public response to the ads, we see evidence of a pluralistic worldview contrasted against exclusive religious (and occasionally exclusive irreligious) standpoints. Most bus ads were not explicitly critical of religious belief. Instead, they were aimed primarily toward sending nonbelievers the message that they are numerous and their worldviews are legitimate. We interpreted such an approach as compatible with the values of religious pluralism. Some ads, however, were explicitly critical of religious belief, condemned specific Bible passages as immoral, or urged the audience to abandon belief in God. These ads we interpreted as incompatible with the values of religious pluralism; that is, we interpreted them as ‘exclusive’, in their view of acceptable (ir)religiosity, as they suggested that atheism is better or more reasonable than theism. Of the forty-two campaigns we identified and analyzed, we categorized twenty-seven as ‘pluralistic’ (compatible with the values of religious pluralism, though not necessarily promoting those values) and fifteen as ‘exclusive’. That is, approximately two-thirds of the bus ad campaigns refrained from attacking religious

USA: SECULARIST, HUMANIST, ATHEIST, AND FREETHOUGHT

383

belief and opted instead to reach out directly to the irreligious or send the message that there is nothing wrong with being an atheist or being nonreligious. Of course, one could argue that such a distinction is a highly subjective one to make, and that may be so. After all, the most robust public backlashes against these ads (in Fort Worth and Little Rock) were in response to ads that we labeled as pluralistic. That somewhat surprising result is likely a reflection of the cultural milieus in which the ad campaigns took place as opposed to a reflection of the content of the ads themselves. Some shaf activists might contest our labeling of some of these ads as exclusive given that certain ads seem to be just stating facts (e.g., the “Consider Humanism” campaign, which contrasted ostensibly sexist quotations from the Bible against modern progressive quotations from famous humanists). In the following paragraphs we delineate the process by which we categorized each ad into the ‘pluralistic’ or ‘exclusive’ category in order to help readers better understand our conclusions. Many of the bus ads that ran in the United States reflected what we consider a pluralistic message, such as the following: “You can be good without God”; “Good without God? Millions of Americans are”; and “Millions of Americans are good without God.” We found twelve pluralistic campaigns41 that testified to the ability of atheists and non-believers to be moral people, making this the most advertised message in our findings. We considered this message to be pluralistic because it makes no judgments about religious people and instead simply affirms the ability of atheists to live moral lives. Likewise, ads with messages such as “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone” served to affirm atheism for nonbelievers. We identified six such ad campaigns, only four of which were actually launched. Equally straightforward were ads that directly attacked religion. One bus ad that ran in various cities on behalf of the Freedom From Religion Foundation was a quotation from Richard Dawkins that read, “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction.” Ads like this one were classified as exclusive. Advertisements that advocated for the separation of church and state were more difficult to categorize. One such advertisement from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, for example, paraphrased John Adams from the Treaty of Tripoli, stating, “The United States is not founded on the Christian religion” (Corvallis, Oregon and Kent, Ohio). Another, more direct, advertisement from the Freedom From Religion Foundation read, “Keep Religion OUT 41

Such campaigns appeared in Boston, Massachusetts; Des Moines, Iowa; Detroit, Michigan; Fayetteville, Arkansas; Fort Worth, Texas; Little Rock, Arkansas; New York, New York; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; South Bend, Indiana; Spokane, Washington; and Washington, dc.

384

HOMAN, MANN AND CRAGUN

of G ­ overnment” (Kent, Ohio). These ads we interpreted as pluralistic in that, as opposed to advocating for one worldview above any other, the ads were a call for secularism in the true definition of the word – that is, a call for the government to be functionally agnostic on religious matters. Other ads tested the boundaries of our categorizations by not being directly antagonistic to religion but still explicitly questioning its usefulness or legitimacy. An example is the first advertisement in this study’s chronology, the 2008 ad from Washington, dc, that featured a shrugging Santa saying, “Why believe in a God? Just be good for goodness’ sake.” This statement we interpreted as exclusive because it implies that belief in God is gratuitous, which is an implicit criticism of religions whose tenets include belief in one or more gods. Responses to the campaigns as reflected in media coverage provide another perspective on the question of pluralism versus exclusivity. Note that our analysis of media coverage is subject to the same general criticism as all analyses of media coverage are – namely, that one cannot know what the majority of the public thought about the ad campaigns, only those individuals who were selected by reporters and news organizations to comment on these campaigns. Because reporters and news organizations have already filtered people’s reactions to the campaigns, our findings cannot say much about the wider public response itself. The unit of analysis cannot be as straightforward here as it was for the bus ad campaigns themselves, so we focused on what we call ‘voices’ in an attempt to measure the prevalence of pluralism and exclusivity in media coverage of the public response. We examine three types of voices that were common in the news coverage and could be deemed either compatible with the values of religious pluralism or exclusivity. They were: (1) the voice of the medium reporting the news; (2) the voice of any members of clergy who were interviewed, and; (3) the voice of the ‘person on the street’; this third type of voice was a prominent feature of local television coverage. We did not measure the voices of official spokespeople – that is, the spokespeople of shaf organizations (whose voices we consider represented by the ads themselves), the government, and private ad agencies (whose voices we consider sufficiently represented in our section on legal responses). In total, we analyzed 54 news stories about the bus ads. Local news coverage, which composed the vast majority of the data we collected, universally reflected a dispassionate approach to reporting on the various events surrounding the atheist bus ad campaigns. Such an approach, of course, is compatible with the values of religious pluralism, and this approach accounted for fifty-one of the fifty-four news stories examined. The remaining three were from national news outlets (Fox News, msnbc, and The Blaze), each of which was critical of the bus advertising.

USA: SECULARIST, HUMANIST, ATHEIST, AND FREETHOUGHT

385

In the news stories we analyzed, although the journalists themselves generally spoke or wrote with a dispassionate tone, many sought the opinions of local clergy on the bus ads. In total, we counted twenty-two members of clergy who were asked about their views of the bus ads. Thirteen expressed views compatible with religious pluralism, and nine reacted to the ads with hostility while arguing for the importance of Christianity in the United States. The clergy members whose responses reflected pluralistic values often referenced the need for more honest dialogue and communication about matters of religion in the United States. Some even expressed appreciation that these ads might provide an additional opening for them to spread their own message. As one Des Moines area Lutheran pastor told a local news reporter, “I think the more people can have an honest conversation and have honest opportunities and be given environments where they can seek the truth about whether or not there’s a God, the better.”42 Those who were critical tended to see the ads as a direct threat to theism and Christianity, which they considered the moral foundation of American society. Some even interpreted the most innocuous ads as an intentional affront to Christianity rather than as outreach to atheists or even a critique of religion or theism in general. For example, a pastor interviewed on Fox News in regard to an ad that said, “You can be good without God,” responded by stating “I feel like it’s a direct insult to Christianity.”43 Local television coverage, as well as some print and Internet articles, featured voices from a ‘person on the street’. In our data, these ‘person on the street’ opinions were nearly evenly divided between pluralistic and exclusivist views. More likely than not, this fairly even split reflects most news outlets’ desire to offer equal time to opposing voices on a given issue (as opposed to reflecting the actual mix of public sentiment). Out of the thirty-six voices of individuals we analyzed, we coded nineteen as religiously pluralistic and seventeen as exclusivist. The pluralistic voices primarily emphasized freedom of speech and an open public square as important American values. As one Portland, Oregon, woman who was interviewed in response to one of the ad campaigns (“Are you good without God? Millions are.”) said, “I think we have freedom of speech and that’s what it’s all about.” The person-on-the-street reactions that we coded as exclusivist typically conveyed anger, disappointment, or general disapproval of the ads’ messages. An example is the statement of a Little Rock, Arkansas, man 42 43

who-hd news broadcast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRNMDByIZfA (accessed May 25, 2014). Fox News. (Producer). (2009). Fox News Channel coverage of the Indiana Atheist Bus Campaign. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMC34quXuus.

386

HOMAN, MANN AND CRAGUN

who spoke to a local news affiliate while ­standing in front of a bus ad (“Are you good without God? Millions are”). The man said, “Without God, you don’t have anything. Without God, you have nothing.” Pointing at the ad, he lamented, “Look at that, man. That’s a shame.”44 A handful of voices stated that they did not think atheists should be allowed to advertise, and others conveyed antipathy. Two voices, however, criticized the ads while also asserting that atheists should be allowed to advertise. We categorized these two voices as compatible with the values of religious pluralism. As another Little Rock bus rider commented, “As far as I’m concerned, I think it’s an insult…[but] it’s a free country. You can do what you want to. Now, whether anybody’s going to agree with it or not is a different thing.”45 In summary, we found a total of eighty-two voices compatible with religious pluralism and thirty exclusivist voices, most of which seemed geared toward protecting Christianity and theism as unquestioned and necessary qualities of the American experience. We found no voices (from media, clergy, or people on the street) expressing an exclusivist atheist view (i.e., arguing that everyone should be an atheist, that atheism is the only appropriate worldview, or that atheists should be allowed to advertise while Christians should be forbidden from such activity). We also found a marked divergence between national and local coverage, with the former more prone to adopt a frame that pitted a Christian outlook against atheism and secularism while favoring the Christian outlook. Local news journalists in their own speech or writing tended to simply communicate the facts and details of the ad campaigns and ensuing controversies, while introducing subjective perspectives through interviews. In general, both the ads themselves and the voices present in local media accounts of the ads reflect an embrace of religious pluralism that would not be fully captured by an analysis focusing on national news coverage only. Furthermore, we find pluralism in every component of our analysis, including the reactions of Christian citizens and clergy. Although hostile responses to these ads are certainly present, our findings suggest – as much as our limited sample can allow – that the preponderance of responses are pluralistic; on the whole, people seem to view freedom of speech and freedom of religion more favorably than they view attempts to decrease pluralism.

44 45

THV11 news broadcast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QveUKgdCeWE (accessed May 25, 2014). Fox16 news broadcast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaUjKPL3LG4 (accessed May 25, 2014).

USA: SECULARIST, HUMANIST, ATHEIST, AND FREETHOUGHT

387

How does one interpret the pluralism characteristic of most of the ads and most responses to the ads? It would be difficult to attempt to answer that question without at least a brief consideration of the history of normative ­religiosity in the United States. One especially influential study on that topic is Will Herberg’s book Protestant, Catholic, Jew,46 which documented the role of immigration in increasing religious heterogeneity. Culturally acceptable forms of religiosity had expanded beyond Protestantism to Catholicism and Judaism by the middle of the twentieth century (though discrimination against Catholics and Jews certainly has not been eradicated, even as of today). More recent research has noted a continuation of this trend to include other religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam to varying degrees.47 However, atheism has yet to become culturally acceptable in the United States.48 Atheists remain one of the most distrusted ‘religious’ groups in the United States, perhaps the most distrusted.49 Yet, there are signs that religious pluralism and, more specifically, interfaith activism, are beginning to gain cultural prominence,50 thereby starting to make room for atheists and the irreligious in the American religious landscape. It could be that the pluralism typical of most shaf bus advertising reflects the broader cultural move towards pluralism. On the other hand, pluralistic advertising could be interpreted as a necessary strategy for organizations whose worldviews are considered deviant by many Americans. Of course, these two hypotheses are not mutually exclusive. We have examined the underlying pluralism and exclusivity present in the ads and the public response to the ads, but an important question remains: beyond simply buying ad space, how do shaf organizations craft their advertising messages and actually get through to people? To answer that question, we consider the ad campaigns as a social movement.

46 47 48

49

50

Herberg, Will. 1955. Protestant – Catholic – Jew. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. Edgell, Penny, and Eric Tranby. 2010. “Shared Visions? Diversity and Cultural Membership in American Life.” Social Problems, 57(2), 175–204. Edgell, Penny, Joseph Gerteis, and Douglas Hartmann. 2006. “Atheists as ‘other’: Moral boundaries and cultural membership in American society.” American Sociological Review 71(2): 211–234. Gervais, Will M., Azim F. Shariff, and AraNorenzayan. 2011. “Do you believe in atheists? Distrust is central to anti-atheist prejudice.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101(6): 1189–1206. Niebuhr, Gustav. 2008. Beyond Tolerance: Searching for Interfaith Understanding in A ­ merica. New York, ny: Penguin Group.

388 16.5

HOMAN, MANN AND CRAGUN

The Bus Ad Campaigns as a Social Movement

As noted in the introduction to this chapter, resource mobilization theory focuses on the role of the availability of resources in helping social movements succeed, as opposed to focusing on factors such as the psychological mindset of the members of the movement. In addition to resource mobilization theory, a number of other social movement theories could shed light on the atheist bus ads in the United States. One especially useful set of ideas comes from an influential theory on framing processes originating from David Snow and his colleagues.51 These scholars analyzed the dynamic and dialogical processes by which social movements frame their missions and the problems toward which their efforts are directed. One part of the theory of framing processes in social movements that could be applied to atheist bus advertising in a fruitful and interesting way is “frame alignment processes.” Snow and colleagues articulate four types of frame alignment processes, each with some bearing on an analysis of atheist bus advertising. These processes are “frame bridging,” “frame amplification,” “frame extension,” and “frame transformation.” As described by Snow and colleagues, “frame bridging refers to the linking of two or more ideologically congruent frames regarding a particular issue or problem.”52 Whether a social movement organization links its mission to individuals or to other social movement organizations, “frame bridging” refers to the act of reaching out to potential supporters who have not yet been mobilized. Thus, the primary function of the bus ads – that of reaching out to nonbelievers – is in fact frame bridging. The second process, “frame amplification,” can manifest itself in multiple forms. One form is “belief amplification.” For instance, some atheists may believe that they can live a fulfilled life without God but may harbor strong doubts about that belief because of the theistic culture they live in. When they see the ad that says, “You don’t need God – to hope, to care, to love, to live” (Washington, dc), their belief in their own ability to be fulfilled without God may be amplified. Concurrently, that particular ad is a striking example of the second kind of frame amplification described, 51

52

Snow, David A., E. Burke Rochford, Jr., Steven K. Worden, and Robert D. Benford. 1986. “Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation.” A ­ merican Sociological Review 51(4): 464–481; Benford, R.D., & Snow, D.A. (2000). “Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639. Benford, R.D., & Snow, D.A. (2000). “Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 624.

USA: SECULARIST, HUMANIST, ATHEIST, AND FREETHOUGHT

389

which is “value amplification.” When values are amplified, they become more salient and people become willing to take action on their behalf. In this example, some people may be convinced or reminded by this ad that they find “believing” to be either secondary or irrelevant to hoping, caring, loving, and living. “Frame transformation,” or the process by which social movement organizations attempt to redefine beliefs and values so as to attain more support, is a distinct aspect of many of the bus advertisements referenced earlier. To offer a broad interpretation of frame transformation in the ads cited in this chapter, many of them contribute to problematizing the popularly held notion that atheists are a small and insignificant group of immoral people who exist beyond the boundaries of normative us culture.53 These ads portray atheists as a large and significant group of moral people who are part of the social fabric of local communities and American society as a whole. Thus, the former taken-for-granted beliefs are reframed as unjust and in need of a coordinated and robust social response. In addition, many of the ads themselves embody a transformation of shaf organizations’ framing strategy by abandoning critiques of religion in favor of emphasizing the morality of atheists. Finally, “frame extension” is the means by which a social movement organization attempts to include tangential interests in its mission to broaden support. Frame extension may be an area in which social-movement scholarship could offer some useful insights for shaf organizations. Some possible examples of frame extension present in the ads and covered in our analysis are the invocation of church–state separation, feminism, racial equality, patriotism, lgbtq rights, and science education. As other scholars have observed, a common characteristic of successful social movements is a focused agenda.54 An agenda that is too broad can cause a number of different problems, such as schisms, a shortage of resources due to attempts to accomplish too many tasks at once, and confusion about the identity of the movement. The shaf organizations behind the bus ads have not only engaged in frame extension but also (as noted in this chapter) have created ads with numerous functions, such as reaching out to atheists and communicating to Christians and other religious people the idea that atheists are not inherently immoral. Whether this plethora of strategies and goals amounts to a “frame over-extension” that 53 54

Edgell, Gerteis, and Hartmann. “Atheists as ‘Other’: Moral Boundaries and Cultural Membership in American Society.” Ash, Roberta. 1972. Social Movements in America. Chicago: Markham Pub. Co. In addition, see Gamson, William. 1975. The Strategy of Social Protest. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press.

390

HOMAN, MANN AND CRAGUN

might weaken shaf organizations and the movement as a whole is an open question. What is clear, however, is that shaf organizations’ general approach to bus advertising does not seem to be too narrow. 16.6 Conclusion In this chapter we examined the origins and development of advertising on buses conducted by secularist, humanist, atheist, and freethought (shaf) groups in the United States from 2008 through 2013. As far as we know, the first bus campaign from the shaf movement took place in Washington, dc, in 2008, though the idea was also under consideration in the United Kingdom and was followed by similar campaigns around the world shortly thereafter (as the other chapters in this book indicate). The campaigns in the United States were far-ranging in both geographic coverage and message. Geographically, campaigns took place across the nation, primarily in larger cities though not exclusively so. The advertising messages tended to focus on outreach to people who were already atheists or nonbelievers, though there were also efforts to normalize atheism and nonreligion and there was some criticism of religion. We found very little evidence of efforts to convert people to atheism or agnosticism in the advertising campaigns we analyzed. The majority of the advertisements reflected a pluralistic message. The public responses to the campaigns were more mixed, with a fair amount of criticism of the campaigns from people interviewed by the media. However, even the responses reflected a substantial degree of religious pluralism, from religious and nonreligious individuals alike. In some ways, the bus advertising campaigns align with recommendations for successful social movement activity. For instance, social scientists have found that rigid, ideological beliefs tend to decrease the success of a social movement, partially because it can be difficult to obtain and retain followers who must accept such rigidity.55 The bus ads, far from pushing an agenda of strict beliefs, are characterized by statements about lack of belief. For example, ads such as “You don’t have to believe in God to be a moral or ethical person” (New York, New York) do not proclaim any particular ideology that makes a person ethical. Instead, these ads simply state that belief in God is not necessary for people to behave ethically. The generally

55

Reese, Ellen, and Garnett Newcombe. 2003. “Income Rights, Mothers’ Rights, or Workers’ Rights? Collective Action Frames, Organizational Ideologies, and the American Welfare Rights Movement.” Social Problems 50(2): 294–318.

USA: SECULARIST, HUMANIST, ATHEIST, AND FREETHOUGHT

391

pluralistic approach of the bus advertising campaigns may have f­ acilitated the generally positive response. But for other reasons, such as the risk of frame over-extension, the bus advertisement campaigns in the United States might be somewhat problematic as far as effective movement activism goes. Future research on shaf movement activism should examine how successful these campaigns are in their stated aim of recruiting new members. Additionally, future research should also consider how people respond to different irreligious messages – those which are designed to amplify and bridge frames versus those which tend to focus on critiquing religion. Regardless of what future research finds on the effectiveness of different techniques, what the bus advertising campaigns reveal is that a shift in attitudes toward secularists, humanists, atheists, and freethinkers has taken place. No longer is the idea of being a nonbeliever so taboo that any suggestion of advertising about nonbelief is rejected. shaf organizations and ideas remain controversial, but it is increasingly acceptable to be a nonbeliever in the United States. References “After Lawsuit Settlement, Indiana Atheist Bus Campaign Ads ‘You Can be Good without God’ Appear on Bloomington Buses.” August 10, 2009. Press release. http://­ atheistbillboards.com/2009/08/you-can-be-good-without-god/. Alba, Richard, and Victor Nee. 2003. Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ash, Roberta. 1972. Social Movements in America. Chicago: Markham Pub. Co. CBSDFW.COM “Atheists Don’t Need God, So Pastors Don’t Need Buses.” CBS DFW. December 2, 2010. http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2010/12/02/bus-billboards-say-atheists -good-without- god/ (accessed May 25, 2014). Benford, R.D., & Snow, D.A. 2000. “Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology, 26: 611–639. Bowman, Karlyn, Norman Ornstein, Michael Barone, and Henry Olsen. 2012. AEI Political Report: A Monthly Poll Compilation. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. http://www.aei.org/files/2012/07/19/-aei-political-report-july- 2012_153833688607.pdf (accessed May 13, 2014). Brantley, Max. June 1, 2011. “Atheists Sue over Refusal of Bus Ad,” Arkansas Times, http:// www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2011/06/01/atheists-sue-over-refusal -of-bus-ad (accessed August 12, 2014). “Port Authority settles suit over atheism ads.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, July 3, 2014. http://www.post-gazette.com/local/region/2014/07/04/Port-Authority-settles-suit -over-atheism-ads/stories/201407040024.

392

HOMAN, MANN AND CRAGUN

Brown, David. 1999. “Complicity and Reproduction in Teaching Physical Education.” Sport, Education and Society 4.2:143–159. Bruce, Steve. 2002. God Is Dead: Secularization in the West. London: Blackwell Publishers. “Bus sign notes America is not a Christian nation.” September 2, 2011. Press release. http://atheistbillboards.com/2011/09/the-united-states-is-not-founded-2/. Chemerinsky, Erwin. 2006. Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies Aspen Publishers, New York, New York. Connell, R.W., and James W. Messerschmidt. 2005. “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept.” Gender & Society 19.6: 829–859. Cragun, Ryan T., Patrick Henry, Casey P. Homan, and Joseph Hammer. 2012. “Whom Do People Dislike More: Atheists or Cultists?” Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion 8: 1–19. Craig, Steve. 1992. Men, Masculinity, and the Media. Newbury Park: SAGE Publications, Inc. Dickson, Gordon. December 16, 2010. “Religious ads banned from Fort Worth Buses.” StarTelegram. http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/12/15/2708144/ religious-ads-banned -from-fort.html?rh=1 (accessed May 25, 2014). Edgell, Penny, and Eric Tranby. 2010. “Shared Visions? Diversity and Cultural Membership in American Life.” Social Problems, 57.2, 175–204. Edgell, Penny, Joseph Gerteis, and Douglas Hartmann. 2006. “Atheists as ‘Other’: Moral Boundaries and Cultural Membership in American Society.” American Sociological Review 71: 211–234. Edwords, Fred. February 24, 2014. Interview by Marcus Mann. Fox News. (Producer). 2009. Fox News Channel coverage of the Indiana Atheist Bus Campaign. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMC34quXuus. Fox16 news broadcast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaUjKPL3LG4 (accessed May 25, 2014). Gamson, William. 1975. The Strategy of Social Protest. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press. Gervais, Will M. 2011. “Finding the Faithless: Perceived Atheist Prevalence Reduces Anti- Atheist Prejudice.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 37.4: 543–556. Gervais, Will M., Azim F. Shariff, and Ara Norenzayan. 2011. “Do You Believe in Atheists? Distrust Is Central to Anti-Atheist Prejudice.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101.6: 1189–1206. Gray, Steven. May 28, 2009. “Is God Dead? Or Just Not Riding the Bus?” Time, http:// content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1901301,00.html. CBNNews.com “‘God’s Message’ Follows Ft. Worth Atheist Bus Ads.” CBN News. December 10, 2010. http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2010/December/Gods-Message -Follows-Ft-Worth- Atheist-Bus-Ads-/.

USA: SECULARIST, HUMANIST, ATHEIST, AND FREETHOUGHT

393

“Godless Ads Now on Portland Buses.” November 17, 2009. Press release. http://­ atheistbillboards.com/2009/11/are-you-good-without- god-millions-are-7/. Herberg, Will. 1955. Protestant – Catholic – Jew. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. “Humanists Launch First-Ever National Godless Holiday Campaign.” November 23, 2009. Press release. http://atheistbillboards.com/2009/11/no-god-no-problem-be -good-for-goodness-sake/. Jones, Jeffrey M. 2012. “Atheists, Muslims See Most Bias as Presidential Candidates.” gallup.com. http://www.gallup.com/poll/155285/Atheists-Muslims-Bias-Presidential -Candidates.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign= syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Election%202012%20-%20 Politics%20- %20Religion (accessed May 24, 2014). KHQ. 2011. “Atheist Ads to Run on STA Buses?” KHQ Q6. http://www.khq.com/story/ 15122188/atheist-ads-to-run-on-sta-buses (accessed May 25, 2014). Kosmin, Barry A., Ariela Keysar, Ryan T. Cragun, and Juhem Navarro-Rivera. 2009. American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population. Hartford, CT: Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture. McCarthy, John D., and Mayer N. Zald. 1977. “Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory.” American Journal of Sociology 82: 1212–1241. Merton, Robert. 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The Free Press. Messner, Michael A. 1995. Power at Play: Sports and the Problem of Masculinity. Boston: ­Beacon Press. Niebuhr, Gustav. 2008. Beyond Tolerance: Searching for Interfaith Understanding in America. New York, NY: Penguin Group. O’Hair, Madalyn Murray. 1989. An Atheist Epic: The Complete Unexpurgated Story of How Bible and Prayers Were Removed from the Public Schools of the United States. 2nd edition. Austin, Tex: American Atheist Press. O’Hair, Madalyn Murray. 1989. Freedom under Siege: The Impact of Organized Religion on Your Liberty and Your Pocketbook. Cranford, New Jersey: American Atheist Press First. Personal communication with Frank R. Zindler. February 21, 2014. “Aerial Advertizing.” Petska, Alicia. April 5, 2009. “Lynchburg bus firm rejects anti-religion ad; The process leads GLTC to revisit its advertising policy,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, p. B-08. Pulkkinen, Levi. 2011. “1 in 4 an atheist? Probably not,” Seattle Post-Intelligencer, http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/1-in-4-an-atheist-Probably-not-2400965. php. Reese, Ellen, and Garnett Newcombe. 2003. “Income Rights, Mothers’ Rights, or Workers’ Rights? Collective Action Frames, Organizational Ideologies, and the American Welfare Rights Movement.” Social Problems 50(2): 294–318.

394

HOMAN, MANN AND CRAGUN

“RTA gives ads its blessing.” January 31, 2009. Press release. http://atheistbillboards. com/2009/01/dont-believe-in-god-you-are-not-alone-27/. Smith, Christian. 1998. American Evangelicalism: Embattled and Thriving. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Smith, Jesse M. 2011. “Becoming an Atheist in America: Constructing Identity and Meaning from the Rejection of Theism.” Sociology of Religion 72.2: 215–237. Snow, David A., E. Burke Rochford, Jr., Steven K. Worden, and Robert D. Benford. 1986. “Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation.” American Sociological Review 51.4: 464–481. THV11 news broadcast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QveUKgdCeWE (accessed May 25, 2014). WHO-HD news broadcast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRNMDByIZfA (accessed May 25, 2014). Zindler, Frank R. 2011. Through Atheist Eyes: Scenes From a World That Won’t Reason. Volume IV: Omnium-Gatherum. Cranford, New Jersey: American Atheist Press.

chapter 17

Afterword: The Atheist Bus Campaign Lori G. Beaman1 “Adam and Eve Raising Big Questions” – The London Post “How Old Was The Earth” – The Joggins Post “Where Did Dinosaurs come From?” – The Paris Post “Where Did Humans come from?” – The London Post “Wilberforce vs Huxley” – The Joggins Post “Joggins Rocks Reveal All” – The Joggins Post2 These were some of the headlines announcing Charles Darwin’s findings in The Origin of Species, published in November, 1859 and the subsequent debate, known as The Great Oxford Debate, which took place on June 20, 1860. At issue were the controversial work of Charles Darwin and various findings from around the world that supported his theory of evolution. God was suddenly cast in a new light and the possibility that humans evolved from an apelike ancestor, rather than being created in the likeness of God, was revolutionary. Media coverage was dramatic and positioned religion against science by highlighting the two participants in the debate – Thomas Henry Huxley, a biologist who was nicknamed ‘Darwin’s bulldog’ and Samuel Wilberforce, the Bishop of Oxford. Though we may sometimes think of dramatic headlines and less than subtle news coverage as a modern phenomenon, in fact the penchant for drama in the media has a long history, as does the love of sweeping generalizations that obscure subtlety and context.3 However, despite the seeming polarization of approaches between the religionists and the evolutionists, a closer examination of the events surrounding Darwin’s findings reveals that the ‘religious’ response was more nuanced, and in fact was characterized by a ‘liberal’ response 1 E-mail:[email protected]. I would like to acknowledge the support of the Religion and Diversity Project in the preparation of this chapter as well as the on-going financial support of my research through my Canada Research Chair in the Contextualization of Religion in a Diverse Canada. I am grateful to Avian Tang and Marianne Abou-Hamad for their research and editorial assistance. 2 These headlines were displayed in a film I viewed at the Joggins Fossil Cliffs Interpretive Centre, on July 9, 2015. 3 For a detailed discussion of the Great Oxford Debate and its social context, see Hasketh (2009) and Toal (2012).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi 10.1163/9789004328532_018

396

BEAMAN

within the dominant (and official) Anglican church. Even Lord Wilberforce, the purported defender of religion, was said to have stated that his objections stemmed from science and not because of any contradiction between Darwin and the Christian bible’s origin story. The ensuing discussion was international in scope and involved various sites of proof that were brought together by Darwin in his revolutionary findings, including the tiny and unknown community of Joggins, Nova Scotia, Canada, which held rich evidence of the Pennsylvanian Period (the “Coal Age”), which dates back approximately 300 million years.4 One hundred and fifty years later, on January 6, 2008, an advertisement on the side of a bus in England launched what evolved into a global initiative that has become known as the ‘atheist bus campaign’. In many ways the debates and discussion that surrounded Darwin’s work were repeated by the atheist bus campaign, which launched public debate, church reaction, and affirmed a shift in how many people understand the world. The media reports, as discussed in this volume, often glossed over the issues and the responses were sometimes characterized as much more monolithic than they actually were: as the chapters in this book document, the discussions that ensued were not easily characterized as ‘religion v. science’ or ‘atheists v. religious believers’. The context made a difference, of course, but in each country reactions were multifaceted and defy a singular characterization. Though perhaps not quite as dramatic as the findings of Darwin, the bus campaign was a symbolic realization that diminished participation in organized religion was resulting in a dramatic increase in the number of people who identify as ‘nones’, and signalled another monumental change in the social fabric of many nations, the full significance of which (as was the case with Darwin’s findings) is not yet fully realized. The chapters in this volume offer insights about atheism worldwide that allow for the identification of both similarities across countries, and for an exposition of some of the aspects of the campaign that are country specific. What are the similarities and is it possible to think about the campaign as a global effort? Are there important differences between countries that warrant attention? Since many of the authors have reviewed the trajectory of the bus campaign it is unnecessary to repeat that here. Instead, I will focus on several issues that drew my attention as I read through the volume: first, Christianity serves as the main backdrop to the campaign and to the expression of nonreligion in any form; second, atheism’s political entanglements require careful attention from context to context; third, the desire to ‘count’ bodies as believing or not distracts from a more nuanced understanding of what the atheist 4 Parks Canada, 2015, “Joggins Fossil Cliffs, Nova Scotia,” Parks Canada, June 22. www.pc.gc.ca/ eng/progs/spm-whs/sec02/sec02o.aspx.

AFTERWORD: THE ATHEIST BUS CAMPAIGN

397

bus campaign might signal for the future in terms of religious and nonreligious identity and their place in public discourse. To be sure, these themes do not begin to capture the richness of the chapters in this volume. 17.1

Christian Hegemony and Religious Responses

The bus campaign, which took a number of forms including billboards, newspaper ads, and websites, raised the question of the place of religion in late modern societies and also affirmed that Christian privilege, even if only residual, is alive and well in Western democracies, most if not all of which have long been dominated by Christianity. Declining church attendance is often offered up as evidence that Christianity is no longer influential (and in some Western democracies are being positioned as minorities in need of protection); however, these fail to account for the ways in which social institutions have become deeply intertwined with religion. Disentangling the ‘religious’ from the ‘secular’ is difficult and especially challenging to study given the instability of these very concepts5 and a recent trend toward re-framing Christian symbols and practices as ‘culture’.6 I make this point not to be dismissive of Christianity, but quite the contrary, to argue for a better understanding of its influence and a greater discussion about both its contributions and its limitations in relation to the realities of the new diversity in which most Western democracies find themselves. The response by religious groups to the atheist bus campaign and its challenge to Christian ubiquity can be characterized as resting in one of two camps: defensiveness and protectiveness or acknowledgment and openness to debate and dialogue. Sometimes these responses were not generated from what one might assume would be predicable sources, thus laying bare the continuing complexity of religion and mirroring the response to Darwin’s findings a century and a half earlier. The bus campaign foregrounded Christian privilege and hegemony and generated discussion about the ubiquitous presence of Christian symbols, language, and messages. As the opening chapter on Australia by Alan Nixon demonstrates, objections to this privilege did not always come from the ‘nones’: in the case of Australia, an Anglican minister (Gary D. Bouma, also a well-respected sociologist) led the charge of unfairness when the government denied the Global Atheist Convention funding at the level granted 5 See Jakobsen and Pellegrini 2004; Berlinerblau 2012; Berlinerblau, Fainberg, and Nou 2014; Sullivan and Beaman 2013; and Hurd 2015. 6 Beaman 2012.

398

BEAMAN

to the Parliament of World Religions. Nixon documents religious objection to opposition to the bus campaign, much of it based on the idea of free speech and an openness to conversation and discussion. Steven Tomlins and Spencer Culham Bullivant make a similar observation about Canada, where religious leaders, including one high profile evangelical, supported the campaign, saying that it opened space for debate about religion in the public sphere. Similarly, in New Zealand there were high profile religious supporters of the campaign. Religious support for the campaign drew primarily on two justifications: support for diversity, and the importance of public discussion and debate. Of course, the opposite also occurred, as is illustrated by the defensive posture of the Catholic bishops in Spain in which accusations of blasphemy and insult were brandished to criticize the campaign. However, there too the religious response was mixed: the evangelical community in Spain mobilized to respond, similarly to how the United Church in Canada responded to the Canadian atheist bus campaign with their slogan: “God does exist, enjoy life in Christ.” The contrast in tone – one authoritarian and one engaging in debate – is striking. This may, of course, reflect the fact that minority religious groups did not experience the campaign as a threat, given that they do not have the same hegemonic position as the Catholic Church. Similarly, Spanish Islamic leaders supported the campaign on the basis of freedom of expression. In the uk, religious responses also welcomed the opportunity to debate and discuss, sometimes in a humorous back and forth. The response in the us was similar, with more than half of the clergy in the media stories examined by Casey P. Homan, Marcus Mann, and Ryan T. Cragun supporting free expression and an open discussion. There was a third response from religion that bears mentioning: as Teemu Taira points out in his chapter on Finland, the dominant church there simply ignored the campaign, failing to comment at all, and, as Taira notes, consequently missing the opportunity for dialogue. As mentioned above, the willingness to engage in dialogue is perhaps a function of how churches perceive themselves in any given society. As is the case in Canada, the United Church as well as evangelical Christians know they are now just one among many voices, even if they wish it were different. It is the same in Australia: there are many religious voices with (perhaps) no perceivable dominance by any one religion in the way that Spain or Finland experience. Dominant voices, such as the Catholic Church in Spain or the Evangelical-Lutheran Church in Finland do not perceive themselves as being under any sort of threat or competition, however inaccurate that perception may be. In Germany, the Campus Crusade for Christ white bus, which followed the atheist bus from place to place, might also be seen as a response from a ‘minority’ religious group. Though the

AFTERWORD: THE ATHEIST BUS CAMPAIGN

399

reasons for engagement are no doubt more complicated than I have portrayed them to be in this short analysis, it is interesting to think about what factors enter into openness to dialogue and a willingness to engage in it. So too, it may in fact be the case that dominant churches do feel threatened and choose to ignore the ‘problem’, hoping that it will simply go away. 17.2

Mind the Company You Keep and the Importance of Context

The value of a country-by-country analysis is that the importance of context is highlighted. Context shapes the perception of atheists; the ways atheists self describe; and the very content of the bus ads themselves. Especially interesting in this collection is the contrast between countries with a democratic tradition and those who have experienced communism: because atheism was so strongly associated with communism, and there is a strong desire to reject that history and move to a new present, atheism has less traction in those countries, and indeed, in the case of Russia, is treated with hostility. What is most interesting is that the new state powers in Russia have partnered with the Orthodox Church to create what are largely new repressive regimes. In Russia, the legacy of communism was the most pronounced, with the complete failure of efforts to initiate a bus campaign. Moreover, the mobilization of the notion that the campaign was an initiative of the West played into another collective fear about Western domination. The chapter of Teuvo Laitila illuminates, though, that this is the least of the worries of the nonreligious in Russia where a new religious orthodoxy, so to speak, has emerged with repressive tendencies. As might be expected, atheist claims to be associated with ‘freethinking’ fall rather flat in formerly communist countries and it is not clear how to shake free of the association with repression, although the Finnish experience may offer some clues. The relationship between atheism and communism is also part of the national landscape in Finland, which has, as Taira puts it, lived under the shadow of the Soviet Union. The bus ad campaign offered an opportunity to shift the association of atheism with communism to an alliance with science, a move that was especially successful with the younger generation who had not known that communist era. Similarly, the association of nonreligion with communism in Croatia also complicates present-day religious identification. There too the campaign took a unique turn in that its slogan “No God, no master” was a clear reference to a feminist, libertarian slogan, as Dinka Marinović Jerolimov and Nikolina Hazdovac Bajić point out. The intertwining of the feminist message with the atheist message was a joining of forces about lack of tolerance toward both atheists

400

BEAMAN

and women in Croatian society. Moreover, as is the case in Russia, churches in Croatia are vying to re-establish themselves in the post-communist era, adding another layer to the analysis. Though the ad was taken down after one day, as the authors of this chapter point out, it generated months of conversation. It is also possible that the link with feminism in Croatia gave the campaign added credibility, raising the question of other productive alliances for atheists in other countries. The Swedish case raises another aspect of context and the necessity of understanding its nuances. As Magnus Hedelind points out, the online campaign which accompanied a billboard campaign left no space between ‘no religion’ and ‘religion’, with the implication being that people with religion cannot think freely. Though Swedes imagine themselves as being highly secular, they are also strongly linked to organized religion. Curiously, this does not translate into being religious, which is something only ‘others’ are seen to be, thus creating the possibility for positioning those who openly profess to be religious as not one of ‘Us’. Much of the public discussion and criticism, then, was around the potentially xenophobic implications of the campaign. This sort of wedge rhetoric is not helpful in a diverse society in which religion and nonreligion coexist, and in which there has been a massive influx of immigrants. The Swedish case illustrates not only the importance of context in relation to how the campaign was perceived, but also calls to our attention the sometimes unintended implications of the campaign that varied from country to country. In some contexts, the atheist campaign has offered legitimation to those who self-identify as ‘nones’ as well as providing a glimpse of the possibility of being a none to those who have perhaps not previously thought about this as an identity category. In some countries this is perhaps preaching to the converted, so to speak, such as in England, Australia, and New Zealand. However, in others such as Spain, Brazil, and Italy, where identifying as an atheist is perhaps more challenging, the campaign may have served an important function. The bus ad (or whatever manifestation the campaign took) may have presented to some people for the first time the possibility of being atheist. This vehicular proselytization opened not so much a conversion opportunity, but affirmed both for those who already described themselves as atheist that they were not alone, and gave a name to something for which others were already feeling or identifying with. The campaign may have created a sense of community or belonging or of simply not being alone, a possibility that is more important in some contexts than in others. It may also have been a key moment in legitimating the voices of ‘nones’, as Taira points out. In other places such as New Zealand the campaign was a coalescing of sorts for a large percentage of the population who self-declare as having no religion. Thus, though the campaigns

AFTERWORD: THE ATHEIST BUS CAMPAIGN

401

were assessed by some contributors as being unsuccessful, there is no way to know whether or not their very existence validated the identities of those who describe as ‘none’. Further, though there is no denying the possibility of ‘conversion’, described by Homan et al., (this volume) as a latent function of the campaign, it is the least likely result of the campaign in my view. Although there were differences from country to country in terms of the existence of legal protections and solutions to facilitate the bus campaign, the overall experience was one of inaction or ambiguity within law. In the case of Italy the law was used punitively to prosecute organizers for ‘offending religion’. Overall, legal protection of freedom of speech can change the dialogue, but may not be especially effective. Despite a somewhat pervasive illusion about the neutrality and objectivity of law, it is a conservative social institution that tends toward the side of the status quo. There are occasionally surprises, but most often law was not a strong ally for the campaign. However, the chapter analyses are invaluable in that they also illustrate the creative responses to law’s impotence: for example, in Germany rather than bother with legal challenges the campaign simply rented a private bus and went on tour. In New Zealand billboards were used while the New Zealand Human Rights Review Tribunal processes stalled the decision on the bus campaign complaint which to this day remains unresolved. These creative responses are instructive in thinking about grass roots mobilization around law’s apparent commitment to organized religion. 17.3

Mine, Mine, Mine

Often, when reading research that draws on survey results about religious belonging, I’m reminded of the amusing antics of the seagulls in the movie Finding Nemo (2003) when they spot a potential food source and their cries are transposed by the movie makers into “mine, mine, mine.” As religious groups lose membership and the ‘nones’ gain those willing to declare themselves as having no religion, a tug of war is emerging over how exactly to count who belongs in which camp, with each group yelling ‘mine, mine, mine’ over the spoils of surveys. Atheists are keen to draw in those who still declare a religious affiliation but show no demonstrable commitment such as church attendance or participation in rites of passage. Paula Montero and Eduardo Dullo discuss the challenges of categorization in Brazil, but the challenges of what I would describe as the ‘impossibility of no religion’ are not unique to Brazil. This is also the case in countries which have (or have had until recently) an ‘official’ religion, such as Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark. The parameters of

402

BEAMAN

survey questions also pose challenges: in a number of Western democracies that have regular social surveys, the possibility of answering ‘none’ is a relatively recent phenomenon. And, of course, as Montero and Dullo point out, ‘no religion’ may not mean not believing in a god, but may simply be opposition to organized religion. This ‘size matters’ approach infiltrated the bus campaign: for instance, as Homan et al., mention, the Fort Worth campaign used the slogan “Millions of Americans are good without God.” One religious response was “2.1 Billion People are Good with God.” In New Zealand one of the ads stated: “Good without God?: Over One Million Kiwis Are.” The contours of the tussle over belonging will be interesting to observe as they unfold since Christians and atheists seem to have entered into a battle over who gets to claim the waffling, uncommitted, etc. In Croatia, for example, atheists point out the nominal or non-existent practice of many Catholics. Both ‘sides’ want to claim those who may have developed syncretic practices that incorporate ‘Catholic’ ritual and nonbelief. This body count tussle does not really tell us much about what people are doing and how they circumscribe their religious/nonreligious lives. To be sure, the difficulty of Catholic exit processes means that there are many who are counted as ‘Catholic’ who do not identify as such in day-to-day life. But for atheists to begin policing the genuineness of religious practice seems at the very least ironic. In the uk, the British Humanist Association ran an ad that stated “If you’re not religious, for God’s sake say so” in an effort to prompt people to put ‘no religion’ on the census rather than sticking with habit, tradition, or sentiment. Surveys are, of course, notoriously limited in their ability to capture the complexity of religious practice, and reveal little about what people actually do rather than say they believe. This turf war is not especially helpful. Although it is understandable that atheists want to lay claim to ‘none’ bodies as a means to bolster the legitimacy of nonbelief, an all or nothing approach misses the more subtle practices of ‘nones’ and obscures the possibility of understanding the social world, and people’s lives, in all of their complexity. The creation of atheist churches,7 the use of the term ‘spiritual’ by some atheists, and in Canada, for example, the fight of a United Church minister to remain in the church despite her avowed atheism,8 signal blurrier boundaries between the religious and the 7 See Kaya Oakes (2015) and also Richard Cimino and Christopher Smith (2014) for their discussion of the Sunday Assembly among other rituals of the secular. 8 cbc News, 2015, “Future of Atheist Minister may be Part of United Church Conference in N.L.,” CBC.ca, August 7. Accessed November 13, 2015. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/future-of-atheist-minister-may-be-part-of-united-church-conference -in-n-l-1.3183575.

AFTERWORD: THE ATHEIST BUS CAMPAIGN

403

nonreligious9 than many want to admit. To turn this emerging shift into a body count misses the point. 17.4 Conclusion Ultimately, the atheist bus campaign is emblematic of a potential social fissure that is on the horizon – that between those who describe themselves as religious and those for whom religion is not salient. Whether this fissure materialises into anything of concern has yet to unfold. Certainly an openness to diverse voices and discussion may ameliorate potential conflict. However, not every jurisdiction reviewed in this volume shows clear evidence of that. And, just as there is dogmatism in religion so too is there dogmatism in atheism. A final caution from the Great Oxford Debate based on an observation by J.R. Lucas10: “The quarrel between religion and science came about not because of what Wilberforce said, but because it was what Huxley wanted; and as Darwin’s theory gained supporters, they took over his view of the incident” (1979, 329). Though this may be a generous read of Wilberforce’s intentions, it does underscore the power of truth claims in generating conflict. To be sure, there is certainly evidence that the very questioning of the ‘truth’ of religious claims results in cries of ‘disrespect’ and ‘attack’ from some quarters of religion. As Taira points out, as religion loses its de facto hegemony and has to justify its presence in the public sphere, tensions may rise. Homan et al., complement this with an observation that the divide really seems to be between pluralists and those who support a more exclusivist society. Atheist initiatives such as the bus campaign can, if done carefully and well with sensitivity to context, model a commitment to discussion and debate that is essential in diverse societies. References Beaman, Lori G, 2012. “Battles over Symbols: The ‘Religion’ of the Minority Versus the ‘Culture’ of the Majority.” Journal of Law and Religion 28.1: 67–104. Berlinerblau, Jacques, 2012. How to Be Secular: A Call to Arms for Religious Freedom. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 9 10

See Lois Lee (2012) on definitions of nonreligion. Lucas also observes that Owen Chadwick, in his second volume of The Victorian Church, “strikes a note of caution, observing that the account given of the incident in Wilberforce’s biography seems hardly consistent with an overwhelming defeat, and maintains that the received account must be a largely legendary creation of a later date” (1979, 313).

404

BEAMAN

Berlinerblau, Jacques, Sarah Fainberg, and Aurora Nou, eds. 2014. Secularism on the Edge: Rethinking Church-State Relations in the United States, France, and Israel. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CBC News. 2015. “Future of Atheist Minister may be Part of United Church Conference in N.L.” CBC.ca, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/future -of-atheist-minister-may-be-part-of-united-church-conference-in-n-l-1.3183575 (accessed November 13, 2015). Cimino, Richard, and Christopher Smith. 2014. “Ritualizing and Commemorating the Secular.” In Atheist Awakening: Secular Activism and Community in America, by Richard Cimino and Christopher Smith, 118–146. New York: Oxford University Press. Finding Nemo. 2003. Dir. Andrew Stanton and Lee Unkrich. Walt Disney Video/Pixar. DVD. Hasketh, Ian. 2009. Of Apes and Ancestors: Evolution, Christianity, and the Oxford Debate. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Hurd, Elizabeth S. 2015. Beyond Religious Freedom: The New Global Politics of Religion. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Jakobsen, Janet R., and Ann Pellegrini. 2004. Love the Sin: Sexual Regulation and the Limits of Religious Tolerance. New York: Beacon. Lee, Lois. 2012. “Research Note: Talking about a Revolution: Terminology for the New Field of Nonreligion Studies.” Journal of Contemporary Religion 27.1: 129–139. Lucas, J.R. 1979. “Wilberforce and Huxley: A Legendary Encounter.” The Historical Journal 22. 2: 313–330. Oakes, Kaya. 2015. “Belonging Without Believing.” Cross Currents 65.2: 229–238. Parks Canada. 2015. “Joggins Fossil Cliffs, Nova Scotia.” Parks Canada, June 22. www .pc.gc.ca/eng/progs/spm-whs/sec02/sec02o.aspx. Sullivan, Winnifred F., and Lori G. Beaman, eds. 2013. Varieties of Religious Establishment. Farnham: Ashgate. Toal, Ciaran. 2012. “Preaching at the British Association for the Advancement of Science: Sermons, Secularization, and the Rhetoric of Conflict in the 1870s.” British Journal of the History of Science 45.164: 75–95.

Index 1980 Organic Law on Religious Freedom (lolr) 296–297, 301 Aaltonen, Tarmu 145 Abortion 180, 320 Adams, Douglas 337–338 Adams, John 383 Advertising Ombodsman (Reklamombudsmannen, ro) 322 Advertising Standards Authority (asa) 356–357 Age, The 27 Agenda 389 Agnostic 116, 120, 129, 256, 341, 345 Ajmar, Franco 196 Albert Memorial in London 336 Alpha Course 353–354, 348, 362 American Atheists 371, 375 American Civil Liberties Union (aclu) 372, 373 American Humanist Association 370, 379, 381 Amsterdam 216, 224 Andri Sakharov Museum and Social Centre 270 Anglican Mainstream 360 Anzelotti, Robert 199 apn Outdoor (apn) 27 Apucarana 70 Armstrong, Alexander 361 Asad, Talal 42 Association of Atheists and Freethinkers of Valencia (avall) 290, 299 Atheism (definition) 4, 342 Atheist 116, 117, 122, 124, 125, 127, 129, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136 Atheist Billboards 239 – 59 Atheist Foundation of Australia 26, 28, 31, 35 Atheist Ireland 186 Atheist Minority 130, 133, 134, 135, 136 Atheistbus.ca 84, 86, 100 Atheists Union of Catalonia (Ateus de Catalunya, AdC) 288 Atheists v. Religious Believer 396

Atwood, Margaret 107 Augsburg 165 Aukland, nz 40, 240–241, 246, 250, 253 Australian Foundation for Atheists (afa) 20, 24 B.C. Humanist Association 94 B.C. Transit 95 Bagnasco, A. Cardinal 197, 200, 202 Bandić, Milan 122, 128 Barbosa, Rui 51 Barcelona, Spain 288, 293 Bergsma, Ernest and Cornelia 83 Berlin 158–161, 163–164, 168 Betto 70 Blanqui, Auguste 123 Blasphemous Libel 82–83 Blasphemy 2–3, 181–182, 222, 270, 272, 274, 276, 279–282, 293, 320, 322, 340, 358–359, 361, 398 Blaze, The 385 Bloomington, Indiana 372–373, 376 Blue and Yellow God Debate 323 Bonacin, Giorgio 206 Bouma, Gary D. 24–25, 33–34, 397 Bourdieu, Pierre 56 Bradlaugh, Charles 340, 346 Brazilian Association of Atheists and Agnostics (atea) 54, 58, 59, 62, 68, 70,  75, 76, 77 Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon 346 Breeze, Helen 240 Breeze, Julie 86, 97–98 Brights 158 British Humanist Association (bha) 1, 24, 182, 208, 318, 334, 337–339, 341, 343, 351–352, 355, 360, 402 Budd, Susan 340 Buddhism 256, 266, 387 Buffet, Warren 379 Bullivant, Stephen 208 Burchardt, Marian 217, 220–221 Business Committee of Transports Metropolitans de Barcelona (tmb) 288

406 Calabrese, Father G. 197 Calgary, Canada 90 Calvinism 217 Cambridge Companion to Atheism 154 Campus Crusade for Christ (Campus fur Christus) 15, 157, 165, 166–172, 398 Canada Christian College 104 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation 92 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 39, 83, 105 Canadian Code of Advertising Standards 99 Canadian Human Rights Commission 99 Carabinieri (Italian Military Police Force) 19 Carcano, Raffaele 196 Cardy, Glynn Archdeacon 248 Carlucci, Gabriella 205 Casanova, José 148, 338 Catechism of the Catholic Church 131 Catholic 13, 19, 162–163, 164, 166, 177, 179, 217, 218, 231–232, 286, 288, 290–295, 298, 299, 302, 309, 398, 402 Catholic Church 51, 64, 76, 114, 115, 119, 120, 124, 125, 130, 131, 133, 135, 162, 177, 196, 198, 286, 291, 292, 298, 300, 302, 348 Holy See 118, 119 Catholic World Youth Day 169, 299, 302 Catholicism 53, 177–179, 375, 387 Census 52–54, 116–117, 177–178, 354–355 Central Arkansas Coalition of Reason 374 Central Council of Ex-Muslims 169 Centre for Faith and Public Life 14, 105 Centre for Inquiry (Canada) 85, 98 Centre for Inquiry Low Countries 216, 233 Centre for Inquiry uk 359 Centre for Public Christianity in Sydney 31 Cernusco sul Naviglio, Italy 200 Champaign, United States 379 Chicago, United States 380–381 Chieti, Italy 200 Christchurch, New Zealand 240, 246, 250, 253 Christian 22, 44–46, 217, 231–232, 289, 303, 334–335, 354, 355, 356, 357, 362, 370, 389 Christian Meeting Centre 294 Christian Party 356–357 Christianity 15, 17–18, 24, 163, 166–167, 266, 270, 314, 316, 326–327, 329–331, 338, 339, 349, 351, 363, 372, 382, 385–386, 396–399, 402

Index Church of England 338, 355, 362 Church of Germany 161–163 Church of Sweden 315, 324, 328, 330 Church/State Relations 20 Church/State Separation 389 Churches Advertising Network 344 Clarke, Greg 31 Coalition for Secularism 120, 121, 122, Cologne, Germany 158, 160–161, 164, 169 Comincini, Eugenio 200 Commission for Government Support to Faith Communities (Nämnden för Statligt Stöd till Trossamfund, sst) 317 Committee on Self-Regulation of Advertising 288 Committees of Advertising Practice (cap) 357 Communism 6, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 120, 135, 140, 142–143, 399 Confession 116, 117 Confessional Affiliation 116, 118 Consider Humanism Campaign 381, 383 Constitution of Ireland 185, 188 Article 44 179 Constitution of Spain 292, 297, 301 Constitutional Convention 189, 192 Conversion 380, 401 Copson, Andrew 335, 337–338, 343, 353, 356, 358, 360–361, 362 Core Issues Trust 356, 360, 362 Corpus Domini (Body of Christ) 197 Corvallis, United States 383 Cosmology 211 Cotter, Christopher R. 208 Counter-campaign 13–15, 230, 293–294, 350, 373 Croatian Democratic Union (Hrvatska demokratska zajednica, hdz) 118 Crowdsourcing 250 ctv News 100 Cusack, Carole 32 D’Angelo, Camillo 199 Dagens Nyheter 314, 320, 323 Dalhousie University Atheist Community 85 Dallas Fort Worth Coalition of Reason 373 Darwin, Charles 269, 395–397, 403 Datena, José Luiz 70 Davie, Grace 339–340

407

Index Dawkins, Richard 1, 24, 30, 32, 36, 79, 143, 150, 154, 257, 268, 287, 334, 335–337, 344, 346–348, 351, 383 de Beauvoir, Simone 126 De Vrije Gedachte 216, 223 De-secularisation 35 Deist 256 Democratization 117, 135 Dennett, Daniel 79, 287, 346 Department for External Relations of the Church 266 Deprivatization 119, 134, 148 Des Moines, Iowa 373, 377, 378, 385 Desecularization 119, 134 Destiny Church 242–243 Dial an Atheist Campaign 375 Discrimination 187 Discrimination against atheists 1, 247–249 Dublin, Ireland 8 Diversity 53–54, 55, 57, 139, 398 Dortmund 161–162 Dostoyevsky, Fyodor 62 Dresden, Germany 165 Dublin, Ireland 176, 185 Dutch Advertising Code 226 Dutch Advertising Code Committee 217, 225–228, 230 Dutch Constitution 218 Dutch Railways (ns) 225 Eagleton, Terry 282 Eastern Chemnitz 165 Edgell, Penny 4 Edwords, Fred 374, 375, 376 End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, The 346 Engelke, Matthew 362 Engels, Friedrich 125 Enlightenment 125 Erasmus, Cliff 14 Essen, Germany 162 Evangelical 13, 14, 53–54, 242, 334–335, 380, 398 Evangelical Fellowship of Canada 14, 105 Evangelical-Lutheran Church 398 Evolution 269, 395 Expressen 323 Facebook 320 Father Andrew Phillips 350–351

Father Ted 337 Federation of Italia Communist Youth (figc) 206 Feminism 399–400 Feuerbach, Ludwig 125 Fieske, S. 207 Finding Nemo 401 Finke, Roger 163 Fisher, Simon 240–241, 243, 245, 247, 248, 250, 258 Florianópolis 59, 68 Fort Worth, Texas 373, 378, 383 Fortuyn, Pim 222 Four Horsemen of Atheism 79, 346 Fox News 385 Framing Processes 370, 388 Free Inquiry 344 Free Speech 234, 342, 362, 356–361, 374, 386 Freedom from Religion Foundation 370, 371, 380, 383 Freedom of Conscience 276 Freedom of Expression 28, 32, 88, 227, 229, 236, 289–290, 292–293, 299, 302, 307, 322, 398 Freedom of Press Act 322 Freedom of Religion 115, 130, 131, 139, 144, 147 Ads are Damaging to 13 Freedom of Speech 12, 19, 20, 24, 26, 27, 31, 32, 40, 148–149, 205, 206, 385, 401 Freedom of Thought 2014: A Global Report on the Rights, Legal Status, and Discrimination Against Humanists, Atheists, and the Non-religious 1 Freethinker, The 340–341 Freethinkers 379–380 Freethinking 399 Freethought 168, 170–171 Freethought Association of Canada 14, 38, 85, 87, 90, 96, 99 Freethought Association of Free Bavaria 168 Frerk, Carsten 158–159, 164–165, 169, 170–171 Freud, Sigmund 125 Fundamental Law on Religious Freedom of Expression 322 Fundraising 58, 140–141, 159–161, 244, 253, 288, 334, 336, 337 Gandra, Ives 73–74, 78 Garelli 204 Gasparri, M. 205

408 Gates, Bill 379 Gaudium et Spes 131 Gay Pride Parade 197–198 Gelber 40 Genov, Bojan 8–9 Gerteis, Joseph 4 Genoa, Italy 19, 196, 198–199, 205 Genov, Bojana 114, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 134, 135 Ger Groot 233–234 German Evangelical Church Assembly (Deutscher Evangelischer Kirchentag) 161 German Freethinkers 168 German Humanists 158 Giddens, Anthony 154 Giordano Bruno Foundation 168–170 Givealittle (fundraising platform, www .givealittle.co.nz) 244, 253 Global Atheist Convention 397 Global Atheist Convention 26, 30 Globe and Mail, The 85 God 114, 117, 118, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 130, 131, 132, 133 God Delusion, The 268, 282, 346, 347 God Exists 103 God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything 346 Goodwin, Francis 344, 345 Gorbachev, Michael 263–264 Gospel 124 Goteborg 317 Grace Bible vs. Reedman (1984) 44 Greater Lynchburg Transit Company 372 Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority v. Canadian Federation of Students – British Columbia Component 93, 95, 99 Green, Stephen 348 Gruenfelder, Anna-Maria 124, 125, 126, 130, 131, 133, 134 Guardian, The 1, 280, 334, 335, 344, 348, 349, 358 Halifax, Canada 90–94, 109, 110 Halifax Metro Transit 90, 91, 93 Hamilton, on 253 Hamm 162 Hammond, Chris 84, 91, 93 Handelmann 211–212

Index Hartman, Douglas 4 Harris, Sam 79, 268, 287, 346 Hate Speech 302 Hedenius, Ingemar 314–315, 322, 331 Helsinki, Finland 141, 144, 145, 146 Herberg, Will 387 Hinduism 387 Human Rights 249 Humanist Association of Ireland 8 Humanist Alliance in Helsinki 6 Hitchens, Christopher 36, 79, 287, 346 Holyoake, George Jacob 340–341, 346 Homosexuality 319, 360 Houtman, Dick 220 Howard, John 45–46 Howard, Keith 13–14 Huizinga-Heringa, Tineke 225–226 Huizinga, J. 201 Human Rights Review Tribunal 249 Human-Ethical Association (Human-Etiska Förbundet) 311 Humanism 167–168, 170, 223–224 Humanist 342–343 Humanist Alliance 140, 145, 152 Humanist Association of Canada, see Humanist Canada Humanist Association of Germany (hvd) 168–170 Humanist Association of Ireland (hai) 176, 182–190 Humanist Association of Ottawa 85, 86, 96–97 Humanist Canada 85, 90, 92, 94, 95, 106 Humanist Press Service 158, 169, 171 Humanisten 316 Humanistisch Verbond 216, 223–234 Humanists (Humanisterna) 311 Huovinen, Leena 147 Huxley, Thomas Henry 395, 403 I-sight 241, 246 Iblher, Peder 158 Identity 179, 207, 307, 314, 389, 400–401 Identity Politics 151, 142 igp Decaux 199–200, 202–203 Immigration 18, 177 International Humanist and Ethical Union 1–3 Inequality 188, 192

Index Ingrians 139 Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture (isssc) 343 Interculturalism 87 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 296 International Humanist and Ethical Union 311, 329 International League of the Nonreligious and Atheists 168 International Women’s Day 123, 124 Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers 373 Iran 339 Irish Constitutional Convention 192 Irish Independent 192 Irish Supreme Court 181 Irish Times, The 191 Irreligion 117, 123, 128, 132, 135 Islam 12, 17–18, 22, 147, 219, 222, 256, 266, 294–295, 311, 312–313, 315, 325, 326, 329–311, 387, 398 Islamic Supreme Council of Canada 103 Islamophobia 17–19, 311, 313, 326, 330 Italian Episcopal Conference (cei) 198–199 Il Secolo xix 197 James, Ann 186 jc Decaux 144 Jesussaid Campaign 354, 355, 356 Joggins, Nova Scotia 396 Josipović, Ivo 120 Judaism 17, 256, 266, 326, 329–330, 376, 387 Jurić, Tomlislav 121 Kaćunko, Anđelko 130 Kallio, Hannu 147 Kamloops, Canada 96 Kamloops Centre for Rational Thought 96 Kant, Immanuel 125 Kelowna, Canada 96 Kent, United States 380, 383 Khruschev, Nikita 263 Kirwin, Sherry 90 Kluun 235 Knippenberg, Hans 218 Knox, Zoe 263–264, 266 Kosmin, Barry 343–344, 354 Kustić, Živko 130

409 La Caruna 289 Laicism 204–205 Lamar Transit Advertising 94 Lancinno, Italy 200 Larlham, David 350, 351 Larsmo, Ola 323, 324 Lautsi and Others v. Italy 2011 204, 304 Lautsi, Soile 203 League of Militant Atheists 263 Lee, Lois 4, 211, 355–356, 363 Legal (refusal to run ads) 12, 27, 28–39, 58– 59, 143–145, 157, 161, 162, 171, 199–200, 202, 224, 275–276, 371–377 Leicester Secular Hall (lss) 341 Letter to a Christian Nation 346 Liberalization 117 Liberty of Conscience Institute (Institut svobody sovesti, iss) 267 Linehan, Graham 337 Little Rock, Arkansas 374, 377, 383, 385, 386 London, uk 336, 356, 361 Lucas, J.K. 403 Lučin, Šime 129 Lukes, S. 209 Lussan, M. 202 Lutheran 313, 385, 398 Lutheran Chruch (Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Finland) 139–141, 147, 148, 151 Luzhkov, Iuriĭ 266–267 Lynchburg, Virginia 372 Maddox 34, 42, 44–47 Madison, United States 370, 371, 378, 381 Madrid, Spain 234, 288, 293–295, 299, 300, 302 Madrid Association of Atheists and Freethinkers (amal) 288, 299 Malik, Kenan 359–361 Malmo 317 Malta 118 Manifesto of Evolutionary Humanism 169 Marinović, Ingrid Antičević 129 Martin, Michael 154 Martins, Ives Gandra 73 Marx, Karl 117, 125 Marxist 262 McQueen, Butterfly 380 McVety, Charles 104 Media 295–296, 323–325, 362, 395–396

410 Media (as campaign) 145–150, 151 Media (coverage) 12–13, 241–245, 250–254, 384–386 Media (portrayal) 6–7, 158, 166–169 Meinhof, Renate 166–167 Melbourne, Australia 29–30 Mercier, Alain 96 Merton, Robert 369, 377 Mesić, Stjepan 122, 128, 129 Metro Tasmania 27–28 Metropolitan Kirill 266, 271 Milošić, Darko 125 Minchin, Tim 36 Montreal, Canada 90 Morality 64, 68, 72, 78, 378 Moscow, Russia 16, 266, 270 Moscow Cathedral of Christ the Saviour 266, 276 Mosque-Cathedral of Cordoba 301 msnbc 385 Multicultural 81–82, 87, 108, 109–110 Multiculturalism 17, 18, 256, 270, 315, 327 Munich, Germany 158, 160–161, 164–165 Muslim 143, 144, 321, 323, 324, 354, 359 Immigration 139 Nabuco, Joaquim 52 National Consultation on Human Rights 40 National Secular Society (nss) 340–341, 343 Nationalism 264–265, 268, 281–282 Naudy, Ashis 340 Nederlands Dagblad 231–232, 235 Nederlandse Omroep Stichting 217 Nevzorov, Alexsandr 282 New Atheism 79, 158, 168, 169–172, 232, 236, 268 New Atheist 24, 25, 35–36, 37, 38, 158, 167, 170, 334, 341, 343, 344, 346–347, 355 New Atheists 287 New Humanist 349, 356 New Labour 358 New Orleans Secular Humanism Association 371, 381 New Plymouth, New Zealand 253 New York, United States 378, 390 New Zealand Advertising Standards Authority 40 New Zealand Herald 248 New Zealand Human Rights Act 249

Index New Zealand Human Rights Commission 248 New Zealand Human Rights Review Tribunal 401 New Zealand Human Rights Tribunal 249 New Zealand Humanist Society 240, 244, 249, 254 Nicholls, David 26–27, 32, 38–39 Niemelä, Jussi K. 142–143, 147, 148, 152–154 Nietzsche, Friedrich 125 No God (campaign, www.nogod.co.nz) 251, 257 Nonreligious 115, 116, 117, 119, 120, 123, 135 Nova 227 nrc.next, Reformatorisch Dagblad 231 Nunn, Graham 85 nz Bus Company 239, 246, 247, 248, 259 nz Human Rights Act 39–40 nzbus 39 O’Brien, Pat 92, 106 Obama, Barack 376 octranspo 96 Origin of Species, The 395 Orthodox Christianity 262 Orthodox Social Committee for the Moral Renaissance of the Fatherland 271 Ottawa, Canada 96–101, 108, 110 Ottawa Citizen, The 98 P.C. Jersild 326–327 Padroado 51 Panttila, Sami 146, 150 Papozze, Italy 200 Parliament of World Religions 26 Patriarch Aleksiĭ 265, 269 Patriotism 389 Patterson, Lori 91 Pattison Maritimes 90 Paxman, Jeremy 335 Payton, Michael 87–88, 110 pen International 280 Perseu Abramo Foundation 55, 59 Pescara, Italy 199–200 Petir, Marijana 130 Philadelphia, United States 377 Philadelphia Trumpet 203 Philipp Moller 158–159, 161- 163, 167, 170–171

Index Pittsburgh Coalition of Reason 374 Pluralism 53–54, 56, 81, 99, 106, 276, 369, 382–386, 387, 390 Poland 118 Politics 117, 130 Polls 247–248, 276 Pope John Paul ii 118 Popular Party of Spain 295 Portland Coalition of Reason 379 Portland, United States 377, 385 Porto Alegre, Brazil 57, 59, 68, 69 Portugal 118 Power 18–19, 209–210 Prejudice 55, 57, 60, 63, 75, 376, 379–380 Principles of Secularism, The 340 Pro Reli 160–161 Proselytizing 166, 167, 381 Protagora 120, 123, 125, 132, Protestant 65–66, 375, 387 Protestant Church of Germany (Evangelical Kirche in Deutschland, ekd) 161, 166 Protestant, Catholic, Jew 387 Protestantism 164, 172 Public Transportation Service of Madrid (emt) 288 Pusić, Vesna 129 Pussy Riot 267, 276–279 Putin, Vladimir 265, 276–277, 279 Queensland, Australia 43–44 R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. 83 Racial and Religious Hatred Act 358 Racial equality 389 Randell-Moon  42, 44–45 Rationalist Association (ra) 340–341 rc Handelsblad 231 Reformed Political Party (Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij) 222, 225 Regensburg, Germany 164 Reggio Emilia, Italy 200 Rein Zunderdorp 234 Religion 115, 116, 117, 118, 120, 124, 125, 126, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135 religion à la carte 118 Religion v. Science 396 Religion-free Zone 169 Religious “nones” 140, 142, 148, 396, 400–402 Religious Beliefs 117, 126

411 Religious Communities 115, 116, 119, 124, 125, 126, 134, 135 Religious Exclusivity 369 Religious Expression 242 Religious Intolerance 78 Religious Pluralism 384, 386 Religious Symbols 303 Religious Tolerance 227 Reverend George Hargreaves 348 Reverend Stephen Wang 348, 349 Revitalization of Religion 118 Ribberink, Egbert 219–220 Richmond Times Dispatch 372 Ridgefield, United States 370 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 59 Rixi, Edoardo 206 Romagna, Emilia 19 Romani 139 Romania 118 Royle, Roger 149 Rushdie, Salman 358 Russian Constitution 265, 275 Russian Orthodox Bishop’s Council 274, 277, 280 Russian Orthodox Church 16, 262–263, 265–268, 271–272, 274–276, 279, 350, 399 Rutledge, David 31, 36 Ryder, Bruce 81–82 Salvador, Brazil 68 Sami people 139 Sanger, Margaret 124 São Paulo, Brazil 59, 68 Sargossa, Spain 289, 295 Schattschneider, E.E. 209 Scherer, Dom Odilo Pedro 73 Schmidt-Salomon, Michael 170 Schneider, Maria 269 Schuh, Cora 217, 220–221 Scientology 163 SeaBus 94 Seattle Atheists 379 Seattle, United States 378 Secular 123, 132, 133, 134, 179, 185, 275, 280, 282–283, 314–315, 320–321, 328, 340, 343, 397, 400 Secular Humanist 369 Secular Manifesto 320–321, 327, 329

412 Secularism 19–20, 24, 42, 47, 52, 71–72, 77, 87, 119, 158, 168, 170–171, 203, 205, 219, 220, 221, 227, 264–265, 307, 317, 340–341, 363, 386 Secularist 42–43, 167, 220–223, 305, 350 Secularization 51, 119, 133, 134, 185, 267, 282, 338–339, 350, 362, 375, 384 Selfish Gene, The 268 Serber, D. 207 Serra, M 202–203 Seville, Spain 290 Sharia law 321 Sherine, Ariane 1, 24, 60, 150, 159, 286, 334, 335, 339, 343, 344–345, 347, 350–351, 358, 361, 362, 370 Sikhism 256 Silaev, Ivan 265 Sims, Paul 356–357 Slogan 60–68, 141, 183–184, 196, 199, 250–252, 253–254343–345 Smith, Christian 380 Snow, David 388 Social Media 241–245, 250–254 Soharwardy, Iman 14 Sosis, R. 206 Sottomaior, Daniel 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 70, 71, 74, 78 South Bend, United States 372 Southampton, United Kingdom 348 Soviet Union 142, 154, 262–263, 265, 266, 399 Spanish Alternative 294 Spanish Foundation of Islamic Communities 295 Special Religious Education 25 Spiegel Online 161 Spiritual 256 Spokane Coalition of Reason 374 Spokane Transit Authority 374 Spokane, United Kingdom 374, 377 St. Lukes Presbyterian Church 248 Stark, Rodney 163 State neutrality 81, 151, 219, 221 Statistics 21, 36, 84, 139, 142, 152, 219, 255–256, 306, 328 Steffen, Herbert 168 Stinson, Hanne 335 Stockholm, Sweden 317 Stoczkowski 210 Stonewall 339, 360, 362 Strhan, Anna 356, 362

Index Stuff (news website, www.stuff.co.nz) 247 Sturmark, Christer 316, 318, 326–329, 330 Stuttgart, Germany 165 Šuljić, Anton 130 Sunday Assemblies 342 Sunrise (bbc) 344 Superior Court of Justice of Madrid (tsjm) 300 Superior Court of Justice of Valencia 305 Svenska Dagbladet 323 Sweden Democrats 311, 313, 324–325, 327, 330–331 Swedish Church 328, 330 Swedish Democrates 17 Swedish Humanist Association (sha) 17, 311–319, 320, 322–324, 326–331 Sweeny, Julia 378 Sydney Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras 30 Sydney Morning Herald 39 Taboo 210, 212 Tampere, Finland 141, 146, 151 Tasmania 27–28 Taylor, Charles 86–87 Teramo, Italy 200 The Brothers Karamazov 62 The Great Oxford Debate 395, 403 Theism 386 Theos 348–350 Tolerance 56 Tomljanović, Emil 129 Toronto, Canada 88–90, 109 Toronto Transit Commission 89 Toynbee, Polly 336, 337, 344, 351 Transport for London 339, 360 Treaty of Tripoli 383 Trinitarian Bible Society 350 Trinity College 343 Trottier, Justin 87–88, 96, 98, 110 Trouw 231–233 Turku, Finland 141, 145, 146, 151 tussam 290 tuzsa 289 Twain, Mark 380 Twitter 320 Ulvaeus, Björn 317 Umbrella Association of Free Worldview Congregations 168

413

Index Union of Atheists and Freethinkers (Unión de Ateos y Librepensadores, ual) 287,  289, 291 Union of Atheists, Agnostics and Rationalists (uaar) 19, 196–197, 206, 212–213 Union of Ethical Societies 341 Union of Freethinkers of Finland 140, 142, 143, 151 United Church of Canada 13, 101–102, 398, 402 United Coalition of Reason 371, 373, 374, 375, 378 United Kingdom 24, 54, 57, 58, 60, 90, 101, 157, 158, 223, 239, 275, 286, 288, 334, 390, 396, 398 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights 143, 144 Universal Declaration of Human Rights 292 University Challenge 335 Utrecht, Netherlands 235 Valencia, Spain 290 van den Berg, Floris 216–217, 223–225, 227, 229, 232, 233, 234, 236 van der Staaij, Kees 225–227 van Dessel, E.L. 234–235 van Gogh, Theo 222 Vancouver, Canada 94–96, 109, 110 Vandalism 165 Vasto, Italy 200 Veneto, Italy 19 Vercoli, S. 196, 203 Victoria, Australia 96 Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission 28–29 Villella, Giogio 203 Vincenzi, Marta 205, 209

Viola, A. 206 Vooren, Ilse 232–233 Walker, Dave 349 Walker, Judy 349 Washington, dc, United States 370–371, 377, 378, 380, 381, 384, 388, 399 Weber, Max 338 Wellington, New Zealand 240–241, 246, 250, 253 Weltanschauung 264 Whiteside, Brian 176, 186–187, 190–191 Wigorts Yngvesson, Suzanne 325 Wilberforce, Samuel 395–396, 403 Wired 346 Wohlrab-Sahr, Monika 217, 220–221 Women, Status of 119, 124, 126, 128, 132, 134 Women’s Network 114, 121, 122, 123, 129, 132 Women’s Network in Croatia 8 Woodhead, Linda 338 World War i 114 World War ii 114 Worth, Jon 337, 345 Wright, Tim 240, 258 Xenophobic 323–325, 328, 330, 400 Yeltsin, Boris 265 Yugoslavia 114, 115 Zagreb 114, 115, 116, 121, 122, 128, 131 Zagreb Electric Tram (zet) 121, 122, 123, 125, 127, 131, 134 Zagreb Holding 122 Zdravomyslie (Common Sense) 267 Znanie (Society for Propagating Scientific Knowledge) 263