Atheism: Welcome to the Reality-Based Community

Atheist Revolution Feed

• Misunderstanding Atheism, the Atheist Movement, and Secularism

  Atheism is not synonymous with the atheist movement. One can be an atheist and not want to have anything whatsoever to do with the atheist movement. In fact, this appears to be precisely the position held by most atheists. That is, most atheists do not have much of anything to do with the atheist movement. Those of us who consider ourselves part of the atheist movement know this full well, but it is frequently misunderstood by people outside the movement. For a great example, see this op-ed Kate Blanchard wrote for Reason Dispatches. Blanchard writes that she cannot bring herself to apply the atheist label to herself (even though it clearly fits). Why?The major issue for me is an aversion to militant secularism, akin to some people’s aversion to “organized religion.” The new atheism, of the sort that has celebrities, conventions, media outlets, or protest marches, is not simply about doubting the existence of traditional deities. It is more often about intellectual elitism, and sometimes even outright racism toward people whom Christopher Hitchens referred to as “semi-stupefied peasants in desert regions.” Orthodox secularism, it seems, is about feeling superior to those poor, deluded souls who still cling to religion—that weird little psycho-social appendix left over from some earlier stage in human evolution.Misunderstanding Atheism Blanchard is confusing atheism with the atheist movement and misunderstanding both. Atheism has nothing to do with "militant secularism." An atheist is someone who lacks god belief. That's it. The "militant" label is a slur used by people who do not understand atheism or the atheist movement. Most atheists simply want to be left alone by those who seek to impose their religion on others. They want the freedom to live their own lives without gods being pushed on them. I cannot address Blanchard's accusation of "intellectual elitism" here because she does not explain what she means, and I have a feeling our understandings of this phrase are vastly different. My sense is that she is trying to attribute yet another characteristic to atheism that is not part of atheism. Most atheists do not claim to be better than religious people; most of us were religious people. Misunderstanding the Atheist Movement While most atheists are not part of the atheist movement in any way, those who are part of the movement do not tend to resemble Blanchard's description either. Some of us in the movement detest celebrity and want nothing to do with conventions. Instead, we seek to organize like any other political group and use our numbers to protect the separation of church and state. We are not trying to remake the world; we are simply trying to preserve our civil rights from a religious majority who seeks to abolish them. To be sure, some in the atheist movement believe that humanity would be better off without religion. But the most "militant" things you see us doing involve protesting civil rights violations and trying to raise awareness of the perils of religion through billboards. To call this militant is misleading at best. Misunderstanding Secularism Blanchard refers to "secularism" as if it means the same thing as atheism. It does not. So when she writes about secularism as involving feelings of superiority, she's missing the boat completely. Secularism is about separation of church and state. It is not about degrading religion; it is about keeping government separate from religion. In fact, secularism is about preserving religious freedom. Many people in favor of secularism are not even atheists; they are religious believers. She's an Atheist Blanchard certainly sounds like an atheist, a very confused atheist. She can call herself a heretic if she prefers, but that doesn't make her any less of an atheist. That she might not want to be part of the atheist movement, as she understands it, is not relevant to her identity as an atheist. Most of her fellow atheists are not involved in the movement. That she does not seem to understand secularism is also not in any way relevant to her identity as an atheist. Although most atheists probably do embrace secularism, so do many religious people. Whatever Blanchard decides to call herself, I hope she takes the time to learn more about what she wants to write about next time. It would make her far more effective. Subscribe to Atheist RevolutionCopyright © 2012 Atheist Revolution. This feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement.

• Christian Terrorism in Texas

  If you were to commit a heinous crime, child rape for instance, it would make sense that you would face public outrage. People would be upset with you, and rightly so. Many people, upon learning of your crime, would have violent urges. They would imagine how badly they'd like to beat you, and some with poor judgment or low impulse control might even threaten your safety. Nobody would be surprised by such reactions. Now let's look at a very different situation. In this one, you commit no crime at all. Instead, you complain about someone else violating the law. Specifically, you become aware of a violation of separation of church and state, and you file a complaint. That's it. But once again, you face public outrage. People are every bit as upset with you as what we described in the first case. Many experience the same sort of violent urges, and you receive death threats. You are fired, stalked, and repeatedly threatened. And you know what? Once again, nobody is surprised. Nobody. This is precisely the situation in which many atheists in conservative parts of the U.S. find themselves. If you don't believe me, you aren't as informed about the aftermath of church-state complaints as you should be. Texas Professor Fired, Threatened After Successful Church-State Complaint Consider a recent case out of Texas. Sissy Bradford, an adjunct professor of criminology at Texas A&M University - San Antonio, was fired, threatened, and stalked after Americans United for Separation of Church and State took legal action prompted by her complaint and won. The subject of Bradford's 2011 complaint was a taxpayer-funded tower featuring four Christian crosses built at the campus entrance. Americans United had the crosses removed, and Bradford's ordeal began. According to Americans United, Bradford was then "subjected to months of vicious backlash from cross defenders." She even sought police protection but says her requests were ignored. In a statement to police, Bradford said:I am being stalked & harassed & threatened by student(s) & community members because I am not a Christian. There exists a clear & prolonged pattern of unwanted communication, contact, threats, & invasion of privacy.After the police refused to act, some Bradford's students began escorting her to her car and speaking out in her defense. And then they started receiving threats for their efforts. The university dismissed her without explanation earlier this month. Granted, this is not terribly unusual for an adjunct professor. They do not receive the same consideration as full-time employees, but it sounds fishy given the timing and Bradford's expectation that she would be teaching in the Fall. My guess is that they decided she was simply too much trouble and that they would look bad if anything happened to her. Christian Terrorism Are any of us really surprised by what happened to Bradford? Again and again, we have seen what brave individuals must endure simply for standing up to violations of church-state separation. Damon Fowler, Jessica Ahlquist, Sissy Bradford, and many others remind us exactly why more of us need to speak out. And what of the threats that inevitably come from some Christians whenever one of these complaints is successful? What are we to make of them? This, dear reader, is Christian terrorism. The Christians who make these threats are waging a campaign of terror to instill fear and keep us silent. Try as I might to avoid it, I feel that this conclusion is inescapable. Subscribe to Atheist RevolutionCopyright © 2012 Atheist Revolution. This feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement.

• Atheist Headliners Behaving Badly

  You've probably heard that an unspecified number of unidentified but assuredly high-profile male speakers at various atheist conferences have been accused of behaving badly. Evidently, these prominent men have not only sexually harassed female conference attendees but have also made remarks suggesting they feel entitled to do so. This is upsetting but not particularly surprising. I have heard countless reports of this sort of behavior from my female graduate students returning from professional conferences that do not have anything to do with atheism. And I have observed some of the behavior myself at these conferences. So no, this is not limited to atheists but reflects much more pervasive problems with how some men treat women. Of course, that does not mean we should ignore it when it happens among atheists. Generating Solutions Much of the discussion around this issue has been solution-focused, as it should be. Some have suggested that those who have witnessed the behavior should name names, identifying the offenders to facilitate public shaming. Others have said that this would be a mistake and that the first step is to talk to these men privately first. Try to raise awareness and curb the behavior. Only if they refuse to take responsibility and change their behavior would they be identified and/or no longer invited to present at these conferences. I agree with those suggesting this second approach. My approach would be to sit down with each of these men individually and inform them that complaints about their behavior have surfaced from several women at various conferences. I would remind them that a community which holds itself out as rational and as promoting equality will not tolerate this sort of behavior at its meetings. I would hope that they would agree and pledge to correct their behavior in the future. What if this doesn't work and the bad behavior continues? I believe the next step would be to inform those who organize these conferences of the behavior, of the identity of the men involved, and of the fact that it was brought to their attention previously. Hopefully, the conference organizers would then stop booking them. If not, then publicly naming them might be a suitable last resort. Going Off Track While most of the discussion has indeed emphasized finding effective solutions, some of it has veered close to going off track. For example, I find the suggestion that prominent atheist women are not naming names because they are afraid of being treated like Rebecca Watson unnecessary and possibly distracting. This isn't about Watson and is a different issue. Suggesting that the only reason these women aren't identifying the men is because of what Watson went through strikes me as dishonest. Why? I think these women recognize that it makes sense to approach the offenders first and attempt to resolve the matter privately. I have read many posts suggesting exactly that. And they are right. By suggesting that they aren't "naming and shaming" because the atheist community has no shame, they are getting off track. I'm not saying the larger discussion about sexism in the atheist community is not a good one to have; I'm saying that trying to do it at the same time we are tackling the issue of sexual harassment at conferences may complicate problem-solving. Subscribe to Atheist RevolutionCopyright © 2012 Atheist Revolution. This feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement.

• Catholic Church Threatens to End Charity Over Contraception (Video)

  Addicting Info brings us another disturbing story about the Catholic Church. And no, this one does not involve child rape. As you know, the Church is opposed to contraception and continues to rail against the Obama administration's mandate that it be made available by insurance companies. Appearing on MSNBC this week, Cardinal Timothy Dolan said that the Church was willing to end all charity work, including aid to the poor, in order to protest this mandate. Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy What would Jesus do? Would he bargin with the lives of the sick and poor? I have asked this before, and I will most certainly ask it again: why would anyone want to associate with this organization? It is time to leave the Catholic Church. Subscribe to Atheist RevolutionCopyright © 2012 Atheist Revolution. This feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement.

• Atheist Movement: We Are More Than Our Headliners

  Twitter is one of those rare things where I feel rewarded almost every time I use it. One of the things I like best about Twitter is how easy it is to find inspiration from my fellow atheists. Sometimes it is a great quote I haven't thought about in years. Other times, it is a news story I missed. And still other times, it is the sort of thought-provoking question I can never see too often. For example, Emily Dietle (@emilyhasbooks) recently asked a great question about the future of the atheist movement:I'm a "worrier" & can't help but be concerned that our secular mvmt will fall flat when some of headliners die. Set me straight, folks...I thought this was an interesting question. I've heard many variations of it before, but I'd never seen it phrased so succinctly (another advantage of Twitter). My response was:That's a valid concern, but I think our strength is our grassroots and not the professional atheists.In this post, I'd like to unpack what I meant a bit. Emily's concern makes sense to me even though I do not happen to share it. It is easy to imagine the atheist movement trucking along after the loss of a single headliner like Hitchens. But what about when Dawkins and the others quit or die? Will younger headliners rise to replace them, or will we be left with a void we cannot fill? When I responded to Emily, I did not use the term "headliner" like she did. I knew exactly what she meant. I just have my own hang-ups with the term in this context. I'm reasonably confident this has to do with my puzzlement over much of the hero "worship" I've seen in the atheist movement. I referred instead to "professional atheists," as if that was any better. I'm not really sure why I used that term. Maybe I remembered I had used it before and was trying to be consistent or something. I'm not even sure what it means, although it certainly has a negative feel to it. I wouldn't want to be called a professional atheist, whatever it means. I suppose I'm naturally suspicious of anyone who seeks celebrity in this or any other movement. But I recognize that I'm extremely odd in this regard, and this is a tangent to explore later. Time to get back on track. What I was trying to say in my tweet was this: the real strength of the atheist movement is not our headliners, celebrities, or professional atheists; it is our grassroots. It is you and me and our willingness to give a damn. The cool thing about atheism is that you do not have to be a genius, a great writer, a strong public speaker, or particularly good at marketing yourself to make a difference. All you have to do is have the courage to be yourself and speak your mind. The professional atheists can be helpful. There is no doubt that some of them gave the modern atheist movement a real boost. But they are not necessary. The atheist movement does not depend on rallies, national conferences, or anything of the sort. Atheism was here long before any of the current headliners and will be here long after. The atheist movement will continue based on the work of the ordinary. It has always been up to us. Subscribe to Atheist RevolutionCopyright © 2012 Atheist Revolution. This feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement.