Atheists, go hunting where the ducks are

[rug]

By Amanda Marcotte
Friday, April 25, 2014 8:18 EDT

Greta Christina has an interesting post addressing the concerns that organized atheism, by picking up social justice issues (instead of just “safe” public outreach like highway clean-up and blood drives) , would be courting controversy and alienating people when you want to attract people. She makes the entirely reasonable point that if the concern is alienating people, atheist are already doing this. Refusing to address issues of racial injustice, sexism, that sort of thing sends a signal to women and people of color that they aren’t welcome in atheist circles. As far as I can tell, both “sides” of this debate agree that this is a factual statement. The disagreement is whether or not the responsibility for that alienation lies with women and people of color for avoiding organized atheism or whether or not organized atheism has an obligation to do more outreach. But you can’t deny that women and people of color tend to stay away and that the reason they stay away is that their activist priorities aren’t being addressed in the organized atheist world.

Greta:

If we want to present a better public face to marginalized people, then yes, we risk alienating some racists, sexists, etc. — both outside our groups and within them. But as it is now, we are already alienating marginalized people — by not giving a shit about their issues. I’ve already heard, many many many many times (just yesterday, in fact), that African American atheists get very alienated when they see atheist groups and organizations totally ignoring shitty public education, grinding poverty, systematic disenfranchisement of black voters, racist police and prison policies, the school-to-prison pipeline, the new Jim Crow of the drug war, etc. — and yet working like gangbusters to get the Ten Commandments out of City Halls. And I have heard many many many many women say that they get very alienated when atheist groups and organizations steer clear of reproductive rights, or even hateful misogyny and sexual harassment/ assault within our own communities, because these issues are too “divisive” or “distracting.” I am one of those women.

Who do we care more about alienating?

This cannot be emphasized enough: Wherever you stand on this issue, you are going to alienate someone. Either we run off the more conservative/libertarian elements of atheism or we bring in a younger, more female, more racially diverse crowd. At a certain point, a choice has to be made. When atheism was comfortable being just a bunch of older white men, setting aside political differences regarding the treatment of everyone else in this country was easy to do. But now that the choice has been laid out, that it is a choice is undeniable.

Obviously, I’m pro-diversity in my orientation, so I have a dog in this fight. But I do think that it’s worth pointing out that there’s more reasons to embrace a social justice approach than just simple moral obligation. (Though that honestly should be enough.) When it comes to recruiting people to your cause, there’s a useful saying: “Go hunting where the ducks are.” And embracing social justice is how to do it.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/25/atheists-go-hunting-where-the-ducks-are/

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2014/04/23/no-its-not-mission-drift-but-its-too-controversial/

[longship]

1. I stand with Greta Christina, Rebecca Watson, and PZ Myers on this issue.

All three are saying the same kind of things.

Why so many non-believers do not see these issues the same way is kind of mind boggling. And about the crazy attacks on women in the movement who are just saying "we aren't here to be merely hit on", I am dumb struck.

What do people not understand about this? It really is simple.

[AtheistCrusader]

5. Where is this 'movement' anyway?

PZ Meyers seems as 'big' in the atheist community as Dawkins to me, except perhaps not as many speaking engagements.

If he wants to lead, do it. No one is stopping him. Or anyone else.

[longship]

7. He consistently has the most popular science blog.

And he regular speaks at conferences.

For those unaware of PZ Myers:

PZ is an interesting character. He's outspoken as all hell on his blog, using dicey language and calling idiots to task. It is a boisterous place.

But PZ is really Minnesota nice -- as Eugenie Scott calls him. He is soft spoken in real life, which is completely counter to his Blog persona.

Here:
Pharyngula

He's a daily visit for me. Gotta love him. Plus, there's the weekly cephalopod pic on Fridays (to say nothing about the Cthulhu connection).

[AtheistCrusader]

10. That's my take on it.

It seems like a lot of the complaints about certain prominent atheists are designed around boxing atheists in as a homogenous group with a leadership caste.

As an atheist, there's no bar to entry to the group. No aristocracy. No 'leadership' beyond what individuals invest as credibility in certain people.

I didn't know Meyers was very active on the speaking circuit. I don't see a lot of invites to such conferences, but when I do, it's usually one of the more prominent 'heads' like, for instance, harris. I'd like to meet Meyers in person.


Is it just me, or is all of this predicated on an unreasonable expectation of a hierarchy where none need exist?

[longship]

11. It's Myers, not Meyers.

For your Google accuracy.


He has been interviewed on a few podcasts, and he has some prominent YouTube exposure of his talks.

He is a developmental biology professor. He studies zebra fish. (Well, Charles Darwin studied barnacles, and Stephen J Gould studied snails.)

Plus, he's Cool!

[AtheistCrusader]

12. Sonofa...

How the hell am I going to unlearn that

[longship]

14. ROFL!

Love it.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. You know what's REALLY funny?

I got a 'MeetUp' invite to see him here in Seattle, June 5th, at the Seattle Town Hall.

Got that e-mail invite about an hour after we discussed this.

[rug]

36. There are no coincidences.

[cbayer]

2. Oh, Amanda. I hope you're ready for the backlash.

I agree with her and hope she is able to rally significant support.

The thing with atheism is, you don't have to be a part of an organized group and that's just fine.

But if you choose to be, then you have to ask what that means and what you want to fight together for and against.

Is it just going to be increasing acceptance of non-believers and church/state separation issues.

Or is it going to be more?

What she doesn't do here is make the case that atheism per se should result in more concern about social justice and civil rights. She is really making a political case, not an ideological one.

[phil89]

51. Should people who don't believe in Bigfoot or vampires band together for social justice?

I guess that wouldn't be a bad thing, but I'm not sure why a non-belief in a god or gods is being tied to anything else. It's not a world view.

[cbayer]

52. Sure, if there are organizations in place which represent them

and the demographics of their group are overwhelming in the liberal/progressive camp.

I think the more we as democrats get organized, the better off we are.

Do you have a problem with that?

You don't have to join any such organizations, but why in the world would you want to discourage it?

[AtheistCrusader]

3. Nice windmill to tilt at.

'Organized atheism'

What the fuck is that? Richard Dawkins' 'A' campaign? The FfRF 'out' campaign?

Who/what is the TOTAL umbrella 'thing' that is 'organized atheism'? If dawkins is a gender bigot, call him on it. If Harris is a islamophobe, call him on it.


Atheism doesn't even need to BE 'organized'. I'm not a member of any over-arching umbrella 'atheist' org. Why the fuck would I be? Yes, I'm a white male, but I don't 'hang out' with any other white males and talk about my non-belief in god.

"I’ve already heard, many many many many times (just yesterday, in fact), that African American atheists get very alienated when they see atheist groups and organizations totally ignoring shitty public education, grinding poverty, systematic disenfranchisement of black voters, racist police and prison policies, the school-to-prison pipeline, the new Jim Crow of the drug war, etc. — and yet working like gangbusters to get the Ten Commandments out of City Halls."

Atheism is a single-issue Boolean proposition. It is not a worldview. Progressivism as a political 'thing' addresses a lot of those items. You can be an atheist and a hard-right bigot, or an atheist and a hard-left progressive.

Why is this so fucking impossible for people to understand?

[rug]

17. Like it or not, the fact is that some segments of the atheist commmunity are explicitly organized.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. I agree some segments are.

I also think some people are fabricating bullshit unrealistic expectations for, what is in most cases, a single-issue advocacy group.

[Lordquinton]

4. I think more theists should clean up their own houses

before pointing fingers at Atheist groups, like the whole world wide child molestation ring, the RCC is desperately trying to bury.

[cbayer]

6. Er, Amanda Marcotte is a pretty well know atheist writer and speaker.

So I'm not sure where you are coming from on this.

She got herself fired from the John Edwards campaign for her rather vitriolic attacks on the catholic church.

[Lordquinton]

8. I'm aware of that

Just pointing out that members of the RCC, if they are truly worried about sexism, should maybe post about problems in their church, like how they don't let women be priests, and the multitudes of other mysoginastic issues that crop up in all major religions, instead of distracting it by smearing Atheists by pointing out that they are people too and suffer from the same problems as the culture they are living in.

[cbayer]

9. But this article has nothing to do with the RCC.

Did you just do that to challenge the individual member who posted the article?

What a complete waste of time.

What did you think of the article? I would be interested in your take on it and why you might perceive it as a smear. Seriously.

[Lordquinton]

13. Because it's misleading

and it's being posted by someone who has a habit of saying the exact thing I said in my first reply. There are misogynistic Atheists, but Atheism has no tenants, or holy books, or anything else telling them to act that way, they are just jerks (to put it lightly). The big three, and basically every other religion does has holy books, and beliefs, and tenants that tell them to act that way.

so yes, posting an article outlining this massive sexist problem in atheism is a misleading smear when it's coming from a member of the RCC who tells others to worry about their own problems instead of pointing out the flaws in his religion.

[cbayer]

15. The article is misleading?

She isn't really addressing misogyny, but whether organized atheist groups should be addressing bigger social issues.

Imo, they should seriously consider this. It's a growing movement of people in this country that tend to share the ideals that we on this site share.

It has nothing to do with tenants or holy books or things that tell you how to act. It's about how to take a group that appears to be coalescing and doing something positive with it.

Who cares if religious organizations have books and beliefs that may lead them to fight for things we have in common? If they are fighting for civil rights, economic justice and social justice, more power to them.

I would be delighted if organized atheist groups did the same, no matter what drives them.

The author is a staunch feminist, that is true. And she takes atheist groups to task for how they have behaved in regards to women and, for that matter, people of color.

But that's not her overall point here, imo, and I just don't see the smear. If it's a "smear", it's coming from the inside.

If you just want to challenge the member who posted it, I say do whatever floats your boat. But I hope you don't totally disregard what she is saying here because you can't see past that.

[Lordquinton]

20. In simple terms

The problems with sexism in atheist are no different from the problems in the culture at large, there isn't a problem with sexism in the atheist movement that warrants such attention drawn to it when it has less of a problem than the world at large because there is no holy book telling them to act that way.

What she said isn't a smear it's the misuse of her article, like has been said about some things the Pope has said: It's for Atheists, not Theists, it's being taken out of context and is being used to prop up a false equivalency.

[cbayer]

28. Again, the article is not really about sexism in atheism.

It's about appealing to groups that may not feel particularly welcome at this time.

I'm not sure I see a problem with that.

If organized atheist groups suffer from the same kind of issues that plague the culture at large, why not see that as an opportunity to rise above and do things differently?

Is it really acceptable to just keep doing the same thing because the problems are not worse than in other groups?

[rug]

18. Surely you can post to a link for that. It should easy to find one of those habitual posts that say

what you say they say.

[Lordquinton]

19. Check your post history

you'll find what you ask for there.

[rug]

22. Nope, nothing there.

[goldent]

16. Does that then mean that Atheist groups should clean up their owns houses

before pointing fingers at the religious groups like the RCC?

Me, I think everyone is free to point fingers, if there is something to point at.

[Lordquinton]

21. We don't hold onto a big book telling us it's right to do so

There are some sexist atheists, but they aren't being told to by Atheism.

[MellowDem]

23. Atheism isn't a movement...

And various progressives labeling atheism as a movement, just to turn around and launch strawmen attacks against it, gets really tiring.

There are certain groups out there who are made up mainly of atheists that are addressing very specific issues like separation of church and state. Asking these groups to broaden their horizon to whatever the progressive movement is is pretty damn hypocritical. Every minority group has their own issue areas they like to concentrate on, demanding they don't is about as entitled as it gets.

I wish all atheists were progressive and every movement made up of atheists embraces every progressive viewpoint, but that's not what atheism is.

There are groups made up of atheists who explicitly support progressive values of all sorts, secular humanists being among the most prominent. And, atheists are among the most progressive people out there on a number of issues, beating out women and minorities in their social justice views in poll after poll.

Atheism isn't a "cause", and embracing social justice won't make people atheists. There is a lot of fear and bigotry towards atheists in the US, much of it from women and minorities, who ostracize and isolate atheists in their midst. I see this article has lots of "blame the victim" language in it alright.

[cbayer]

29. It is a movement. You may not choose to be a part of it, but it's just going

to proceed without you.

I'm sure your overall positive attitude will be greatly missed.

She is not "demanding" that anything be eliminated. She is proposing the the agenda be broadened.

I have never seen a poll that shows that atheists beat out women and minorities in the social justice views, let alone poll after poll. I would be most interested in looking at them, though.

Frankly, I think you may have missed the whole point of the article.

[MellowDem]

33. According to who?

If anything, it's a secular movement, if it could be described as that, as it isn't made of only atheists and isn't about atheism.

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise-social-and-political-views/

They beat out quite a few groups on abortion, same sex marriage, and even just identifying as liberal, including minority groups considered to be part of progressive religion, like black Protestants, by large margins. Some of those groups considered religiously to the left are majority bigots and homophobes, which makes sense when you look at the book they follow.

And here's one showing them beating out women by huge margins on the issue of abortion

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154946/non-christians-postgrads-highly-pro-choice.aspx

[cbayer]

34. According to facts and reason.

You are seriously calling people on the religious left majority bigots and homophobes? Like all of the people on the religious left who post here.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to stop talking to you now. I find your position more irritating and hateful than any evangelizing fundamentalist I have ever met. Every time I engage, I regret it.

[MellowDem]

35. Groups that have a majority opposed to same sex marriage...

Are a majority of bigots and homophobes. It's clear as day. The fact that you and so many others excuse this bullshit is what makes the "religious left" a complete fucking joke. Threads praising religious leaders who are fundamentally bigoted are the result.

The religious left is hateful and harmful in a number of ways they refuse to even acknowledge. Any group that claims the Bible, Torah, or Koran is the word of god is spreading all sorts of terrible, oppressive bullshit, even if they just give lip service to it.

And like I pointed out, on many issues women and minorities are very conservative compared to atheists. It's no surprise they, and a majority of Americans, have such bigoted, hateful views of atheism as well.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

38. I agree with you 100%!

I kinda see it like this: It's kinda someone belonging to the KKK, but proclaiming that he/she likes blacks, and getting upset because he/she is being accused of hating non-whites. Duh! If one is not a reflection of what a certain group is known for, one shouldn't align him/herself with that group.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

26. I think there's a misconception maybe that atheists are all "organized"

I don't think they are. I think LOTS of people who work for the public well fare and well being *are* atheists and not Bible-bangers. They just choose not to trash people's religions because they're too busy trying to save people.

I do think there's a lot to be said for organized atheism though. Organized atheism points out all the areas in which organized religion makes the lives of the majority a living hell, and impoverishes them further, and perhaps doing all that pointing out doesn't leave much time to do what the other atheists are doing - helping the people get out of the holes religion has dug for them.

You know what I mean?

[cbayer]

30. No, I have no idea what you mean.

Sounds like a lot of anti-religious dogmatic hyperbole that comes completely from your personal perspective though.

Lots of people work for the public welfare who are believers and non-believers. Most of them don't wear either on their sleeve. And most of them don't call each other names like "bible bangers".

Organized atheism does not generally attack religion in the way you do and the author makes the case for why it shouldn't.

BTW, religious organizations supply the bulk of assistance for the most marginalized people in this world. While I would love to see atheist or other secular organizations step up to the plate, there really isn't a whole lot of that going on.

And that is the author's point.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

37. I know what the author's POV is, and I responded to his (and not your) point of view

As for me, I'm not an atheist.
And for what you do and believe, and whether you're an atheist or not, I didn't ask, and I'm not really interested, but thanks anyway.

[cbayer]

39. Sorry. I may have over-reacted.

There is so much believer bashing that goes on around here that I may have had a knee jerk reaction to what you wrote.

On re-reading it, I can see that you may have meant something other than what I initially read.

My apologies.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

40. I know what you mean. I honestly can't see why anyone would remain in a church that is hate-filled,

yet so many people do, and churches have done a lot of harm in the U.S. since the 80s, by becoming the right arm of the Republican Party. And while some didn't (the Quakers, the Buddhists, etc.), the rest jumped on the right wing hate bandwagon, mostly hatred toward the poor, races, and gays. It's much better to be churchless than with a church where the majority promote hatred toward the least among us.

[cbayer]

41. I have a different point of view.

I think there were still lots of churches fighting for civil rights and social justice and economic equality, but they were out-shouted and out-maneuvered by the religious right.

They fought quietly, but effectively to some degree. Many were involved in the OWS movement, but got very little recognition.

I think they are starting to come into their own again. Moral Monday is a good example of this.

People stay in their churches for a variety of very personal and infinitely different reasons. I don't judge them for this.

And I am strongly support those groups and religious congregations and atheist organizations that are fighting for the things I believe in.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

42. Maybe so, for some. Most got swept in by the right wing extremist wave, or were so intimidated

by the right wing, or so lazy about making a change, that they remained planted in those churches, giving their 15%, and therefore promoting the right wing.

Would it have been easy to say to the preachers, "Look, I'm not into any hating the poor and promoting the right wing, so I'm leaving this church?" Of course not. But it would have been the only correct thing to do.

I am SO disappointed in American churches. It's very sad that churches were propellers, driving us deeply into a right wing storm which tore our country to shreds, but now they merely float along waiting until they "come into their own." They should have been the standard bearers when it came to protecting the needy, the helpless, and the discriminated. They did quite the opposite.

[cbayer]

43. Surveys show that a lot of people, particularly young people, are

doing just that - leaving their churches.

It may be a day late, but it's definitely happening.

IMO, it's important that we give strong support to the churches and other religious organizations that are taking a stand at this point.

It's also important that we form alliances - both interfaith and faith based/secular.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

44. I watched on PBS the story of Irena Sandler and others like her...

Polish non-Jews who hid Polish Jewish children from the Nazis for years, and funneled them to safety, even at the risk of being tortured and murdered, and having the same fate happening to their children, parents, and entire families. Many were tortured and killed, some had their families tortured and killed. Such bravery is amazing. That is guts.

Why couldn't Christians who disagreed with what churches were doing here simply have left the churches? There was no threat of death or torture, no threat to their families, no threat of anything, just upholding what is correct and good. Wouldn't have required even bravery.

That's what I don't get. They waited three decades, and decades later, NOW, only now that the damage is done are Christians beginning to trickle out of churches? And it is a trickle.

[cbayer]

45. They may be members of churches that don't have positions they disagree with.

The major religiously based issues are GLBT civil rights and abortion. There are lots and lots of churches that not only don't have conservative views on those issues but actually are very affirming of GLBT members and pro-choice. Even if the bigger religious organizations (like the RCC) has objectionable positions, the churches themselves may defy those.

And in many cases people get from their churches what they can't get elsewhere - support, community, maybe even food and shelter.

So many stayed and continue to stay because they want to support those things.

I don't think it's anyone's right to tell someone they should leave their church. And I don't think you are going to find many liberal/progressive people in the churches that have strong stands against GLBT rights or are anti-choice.

It is much more than a trickle. The biggest rising group in this country are the "nones" - those that have not necessarily lost their religion, but have left their religious affiliation.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

46. "I don't think it's anyone's right to tell someone they should leave their church."

You're right.

However, I also have a right. I have the right to feel little respect for most Christians precisely because most Christians finance and promote an institution that turned right wing extremist, and thereby financially, politically and philosophically upholds some really evil ideology.

As for support of the poor, on the one hand they're offering a miserable sporadic handout, while on the other they're denying welfare by their support of Christian churches and everything they stand for which is so Republican.

[cbayer]

47. I don't think you are correct about "most christians", although

the numbers are much too large for comfort.

Just me, but I think broad brushing christians is a mistake and alienates people that are on our side.

FWIW, churches and other religious organizations in this country provide the critical social safety net while the government continues to ratchet down the benefits to the most disenfranchised.

That alone is reason for me to support them. It is far from a miserable sporadic handout.

There has been a terrible mistake made by allowing "christian churches" to be conflated with the religious right. It's just not accurate, but there is a notable rise in the liberal/progressive religious organizations in this country. That's a good thing, imo.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

48. I guess I'll be more patient, but honestly, decades of patience with the Christian

churches is plenty of patience already.

[cbayer]

49. It's been far too long, I agree.

But try to check in here once in a while and look at some of the stories about things that are going right (I mean left, lol!) with religion.

It's been nice talking to you.

[cbayer]

50. One last thing. Here's an article posted today that you might enjoy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218126083

[Sarah Ibarruri]

53. Thank you. I guess I'm just incredibly angry at Christian churches and

incapable of seeing them in any sort of positive light.

I see the American Christian church as opportunistic, hypocritical and unethical, as that's what they've been for over 3 decades. Teensy bits of progress just strike me like more of the same.

Only when I see Christian libs walk out of their churches en masse, will I stop seeing them as hypocrites.

Hopefully it will not take me 3 decades to get over my disappointment with American Christians the American Christian church.

[cbayer]

54. I get where you are coming from.

I'm angry that the religious/progressive christians allowed the right to co-opt the brand entirely.

And I'm glad to see them start to take it back, so I'm a little defensive of them.

While we agree on some things, I do not agree that the solution is for people to abandon the church. I believe they need to stay there and help turn this ship around.

I don't think it will take 3 decades.

[chrisstopher]

27. Atheists don't " Recruit "

You just have to have the right mindset.
You either believe in a higher power or you don't.
No amount of talk or reasoning is going to make one bit of difference
to a person that is ruled by religion.

[cbayer]

31. She's not talking about recruiting or deconverting.

She is talking about welcoming.

[Brettongarcia]

32. These post are totally, exactly, wrong.

First of all? The social movements have always been full of atheists; who did not come out however. They did not come out because most people were shocked and repelled by atheists; coming out would not help their cause.

Next? Atheists are somewhat split politically; though most are liberal, some are not. Embracing political issues would split this already weak movement.

Terrible advice.