Permit me brief pause before the beginning of this exposition to provide complete disclosure, so as not to allow room for confusion or ability to misconstrue my positions. I am unapologetically an atheist. I have been for a few years now, and it has enriched my life in some very surprising ways. With that brief prelude presented, let me state my purpose succinctly. Atheists, from my experience, need to calm down.
I suppose a follow up is required on such a bold, generalized statement. First, I will clarify what I think atheists certainly need to keep doing. Atheists, I applaud in all instances where you stand up for First Amendment rights. Both the freedom of expression and the separation of church and state are vitally important to maintaining any healthy discourse in the United States about ethics, morality and the ability to have a dissenting opinion. Furthermore, I applaud anyone — atheist or not — who promotes scientific literacy. It is an issue that is rooted deep in my heart, and I know it is a cause that many atheists align themselves with.
Here is my problem — discussion needs to continue, but the fights need to stop. Calling out individuals who have used their power and authority to intrude religion into our lives needs to continue, but the self-victimization needs to stop. Encouraging free thought and compassion for all humankind needs to continue, but sheepishly following prominent atheists needs to stop. Finally, calm and rational discourse amongst ourselves and others needs to continue, but the religion bashing, above all, needs to stop.
I have attended a few gathering of atheists, something I absolutely encourage. One powerful tool that organized religion has at its disposal is a built-in social group. However, at a lot of these social events I found something lacking. Conversations tended to remain shallow, revolving around prominent atheist advocates’ books, reciting rhetoric repetitiously and everyone congratulating themselves for having found the more “enlightened” path in life. This is not the level of discourse we need to be having as atheists. Atheism isn’t something to wear as a badge of honor on your chest; it is an outlook that has been adopted in the search of truth.
I have a very pronounced problem with a certain kind of atheist. It’s the kind of atheist that is willing to hurl themselves into a fight at the mention of the word “God.” It could be an innocent exacerbation or praise, but to them it is as if their very constitutional rights have been infringed upon. These tend to be the same atheists who demand respect from the community, when they themselves are not being respectful of others.
This brings me to my on-campus experience with the Secular Humanist Inquiry Free Thought club. Perhaps I went at the wrong times, with the wrong group of people or during the wrong moon phase, but the few times I attended involved little more but recitation of quotes that we have heard recycled endlessly across the Internet and a healthy dose of condemning religion. That’s not what I had attended the meetings for. If it’s a club truly dedicated to free thought and inquiry, don’t those concepts apply to the idea of religion or spirituality being true?
I am not in any way condemning arguing, defending your ideological principles, or in some cases just being very, very loud. I love Christopher Hitchens — I try to channel him when I embark on impassioned expositions for this very paper. I disagree, however with some of his stances as well as his occasionally overly disrespectful tone. Furthermore, not everyone can be a Hitchens. I will certainly never match up to his wit, nor his intellectual stature. But he spoke loudly and harshly and vehemently so that we could engage in peaceable discussion with those we disagree with.
Atheists need to be tolerant of religious practitioners
October 28, 2013
Danielbmc • Oct 29, 2013 at 8:16 am
Also, I’ve been around atheists quite a bit, they don’t follow anyone sheepishly. Maybe it’s different in Utah, but in the rest of the world atheists don’t follow anyone–Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris etc… in lockstep.
Danielbmc • Oct 29, 2013 at 8:16 am
Also, I’ve been around atheists quite a bit, they don’t follow anyone sheepishly. Maybe it’s different in Utah, but in the rest of the world atheists don’t follow anyone–Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris etc… in lockstep.
Danielbmc • Oct 29, 2013 at 8:11 am
I think it’s fine to say we should be polite to people. I don’t have a problem with that–BUT when they try to do such things as teaching creationism in a science class, require prayers in public schools, outlaw gay marriage, take away women’s rights to control their own bodies, eliminate sensible sex education in classes, bully gay children (and adults), excuse the abuse of children (sexually, physically or emotionally) we don’t need to be respectful to those actions.
In a club of atheists I see no reason that any sort of politically correct tolerance needs to be shown to people who supposedly aren’t there. It’s good to condemn religion for the things it deserves to be condemned for.
If you don’t like what is going on at your particular club then why don’t you make some sort of effort to change the discourse in the club. Take it beyone what you see as recycled quotes.
Danielbmc • Oct 29, 2013 at 8:11 am
I think it’s fine to say we should be polite to people. I don’t have a problem with that–BUT when they try to do such things as teaching creationism in a science class, require prayers in public schools, outlaw gay marriage, take away women’s rights to control their own bodies, eliminate sensible sex education in classes, bully gay children (and adults), excuse the abuse of children (sexually, physically or emotionally) we don’t need to be respectful to those actions.
In a club of atheists I see no reason that any sort of politically correct tolerance needs to be shown to people who supposedly aren’t there. It’s good to condemn religion for the things it deserves to be condemned for.
If you don’t like what is going on at your particular club then why don’t you make some sort of effort to change the discourse in the club. Take it beyone what you see as recycled quotes.
FUtah2011 • Oct 29, 2013 at 8:08 am
I don’t get together with other atheists, nor do I feel like making my atheism into a social event. That said, religion deserves all the bashing it gets, and more.
ColoradoRob • Oct 30, 2013 at 12:58 pm
Thanks for being the poster boy for this article!
FUtah2011 • Oct 29, 2013 at 8:08 am
I don’t get together with other atheists, nor do I feel like making my atheism into a social event. That said, religion deserves all the bashing it gets, and more.
ColoradoRob • Oct 30, 2013 at 12:58 pm
Thanks for being the poster boy for this article!
Itso Ashkee • Oct 29, 2013 at 6:33 am
In 1927 a case by the name of Whitney v. California came before the US Supreme Court.
In that case, a Ms. Whitney was accused of assisting and organizing the Communist Party of California. Ms. Whitney was a well-meaning person of some means, who fell into the category of what would today be referred to as a “useful idiot”, because she had no idea that the organization was involved in a number of criminal activities.
Ms. Whitney had, herself, never engaged in any of the alleged felonies and misdemeanors, but instead was charged with aiding and abeting. All of the allegations against her were of the nature of “speech”.
Mr. Justice Brandeis wrote, in an an opinion that concurred with the majority, rather famously, that, while it was true that some speech (yelling “fire” in a crowded theater when no fire actually existed) should be criminalized, because of the negative and tragic effect, that for the most part, the solution to “bad speech” was “more speech”, and not the suppression of the offending speech.
This quote is actually a paraphrase. His actual quote reads as follows:
“If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
The point here is that censorship – shutting down people you disagree with – is never the answer. That much is clear. What may not be quite as clear, is the concept that, when faced with “bad speech”, it would be a mistake for the listener to respond with equally “bad speech” of his or her own.
Perhaps a better way to say that would be, “the solution to bad speech is good speech”.
In other words, when faced with profanity, threats and harassment, it would be a mistake to respond with profanity, threats and harassment of our own. Instead, when faced with condemnation, rejection and dismissal, we should respond with acceptance, love and understanding.
That’s the point.
Itso Ashkee • Oct 29, 2013 at 6:33 am
In 1927 a case by the name of Whitney v. California came before the US Supreme Court.
In that case, a Ms. Whitney was accused of assisting and organizing the Communist Party of California. Ms. Whitney was a well-meaning person of some means, who fell into the category of what would today be referred to as a “useful idiot”, because she had no idea that the organization was involved in a number of criminal activities.
Ms. Whitney had, herself, never engaged in any of the alleged felonies and misdemeanors, but instead was charged with aiding and abeting. All of the allegations against her were of the nature of “speech”.
Mr. Justice Brandeis wrote, in an an opinion that concurred with the majority, rather famously, that, while it was true that some speech (yelling “fire” in a crowded theater when no fire actually existed) should be criminalized, because of the negative and tragic effect, that for the most part, the solution to “bad speech” was “more speech”, and not the suppression of the offending speech.
This quote is actually a paraphrase. His actual quote reads as follows:
“If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
The point here is that censorship – shutting down people you disagree with – is never the answer. That much is clear. What may not be quite as clear, is the concept that, when faced with “bad speech”, it would be a mistake for the listener to respond with equally “bad speech” of his or her own.
Perhaps a better way to say that would be, “the solution to bad speech is good speech”.
In other words, when faced with profanity, threats and harassment, it would be a mistake to respond with profanity, threats and harassment of our own. Instead, when faced with condemnation, rejection and dismissal, we should respond with acceptance, love and understanding.
That’s the point.