Is mocking religion enough? Harris, Dawkins and the future of atheist/secular politics

[rug]

Some atheists want to celebrate difference, others want to join the political arena. Time for an Atheist Party?

Saturday, Dec 6, 2014 02:00 PM EST
Richard Cimino and Christopher Smith

There was a much larger presence of young adults and women at the rally than in 2002; the founding of the Secular Student Alliance and its rapid growth in colleges and high schools (doubling since 2009 from 143 campuses to 350) may be a factor in that change. Much of the success of the rally can be credited to the greater coordination and unity between the various secularist groups, ranging from such veterans as the American Atheists and the Freedom from Religion Foundation to the influential Center for Inquiry (CFI), Humanistic Judaism, and the well-funded Richard Dawkins Foundation.

In 2002 the fractious tendency of secularist groups was more evident, with several groups declining to participate. In 2012 even the more moderate American Humanist Association (AHA) took an active part in the rally; as AHA spokeswoman Maggie Ardiente told us in an interview, “Atheism is the first step on the path” to a more positive kind of humanism. The event featured the old standard-bearers of freethought; magician and veteran skeptic James Randi resembled a walking social type of the village atheist as he jabbed his cane toward the sky and railed against the “misogynistic, genocidal, sexist, racist, militaristic, and homophobic” deity of the Old Testament. But the rally also showed how the new atheism and its professionalized, if polemical, style has raised secularism’s status in the worlds of entertainment and popular culture, a subject we will address in the next chapter. The rally’s performers, such as singer and comedian Tim Minchin, the rock group Bad Religion, comedian Eddie Izzard, and Adam Savage of the “Mythbusters” TV show, blended hip and edgy humor and artistic sensibility in their atheist repertoires. These personalities and increasing numbers of other performers are prominent in the entertainment world while also finding a niche market among secularists, along with a host of bloggers with large followings.

The prominent role of celebrities and the calls for reason and coming out of the closet to claim a place in American society at the event were joined seamlessly with irreverent attacks on religion. The tension, if not conflict, between the secularists’ strategies of debunking religion and calling for acceptance in a largely religious, if pluralistic, society was as apparent in 2012 as it was in 2002. This tension between celebrating and suppressing difference from a majority or norm is an issue with which many identity movements struggle (Bernstein 1997). Highlighting the difference from a religious majority can strengthen unity internally both positively (e.g., celebrating an intellectual superiority) and negatively (e.g., emphasizing the oppressiveness of religion). Highlighting similarities with a majority may broaden or extend a movement but may also decrease intensity within it. This question of how much attention to devote to internal issues, such as strengthening unity and increasing membership, versus reaching out and appealing or collaborating with other groups to achieve certain ends, is another issue that all movements have to grapple with and negotiate.

Moreover, agreeing that a problem exists and needs to be addressed, and motivating people to do so, is not to agree on what should be done or how to go about doing it. The issue of gender relations is a recent example in which secularists split into factions over political concerns. A secularist blogger issued a call for a “third wave” of atheism that would unite the politics of the left with a concern that women participants would be free of sexual harassment. She had in mind reports that women had been plagued with sexual harassment at atheist events, but the declaration ignited a bitter split whereby the leaders of the new movement, known as Atheism+, in effect excommunicated or “disowned” dissenters from its platform (McGrath 2012). This example highlights how moving from the abstract to the concrete can divide individuals within a particular group (some secularists have dismissed sexual harassment within the movement as a nonissue), which perhaps helps explain why secularists place so much emphasis on where they do agree. Also, until a constituency of like-minded people come together and decide to act, practical matters regarding strategies and goals are not really an issue. Focusing on broad areas of agreement is a first initial step in establishing a base, whereas getting too specific can turn subgroups against one another.

http://www.salon.com/2014/12/06/is_mocking_religion_enough_harris_dawkins_and_the_future_of_atheistsecular_politics/

The Secular Party of America changed its name from the National Atheist Party last year.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/17/national-atheist-party-changes-its-name-to-secular-party-of-america/

http://secularpartyofamerica.tumblr.com/

[pinto]

1. I think effective collaboration in any sphere depends on acknowledging differences and common goals.

Simultaneously.

[Cartoonist]

2. A Third Wave?

What happened to the second one? Oh, is that the New Atheism I've read about? Did we bury the first one?

[cbayer]

3. I think there was old atheism, new atheism and this particular blogger is hoping

for a third wave.

I think it's more about evolution than burial and birth.

[cbayer]

4. I find this use of "secular" to be unnecessarily confusing.

I think it is used because it is somehow more inclusive and less provocative, but there are religious people who are secularists.

At any rate, I would love to see more groups of non-religious people evolve into socially active organizations and become increasingly inclusive.

There is a lot of concern about the role that religious groups play in supplying a social safety net both in the US and elsewhere. Some of that concern is well placed.

The more non-religious groups that start to fill in the gaps and even coordinate their efforts with religious groups, the better.

[Jim__]

5. I really don't think adopting the name "Brights" would be a good idea.

In the secularist movement’s meetings, blogs, and online forums, much debate takes place about what name might make for a more positive self-image among Americans than atheist or secular humanist. The media devoted some attention to the effort among one group of atheists to substitute “Brights” for the older terms, but little agreement exists in practice on actually adopting that term (Shermer 2003). New atheist spokesman and scientist Richard Dawkins argued that adopting the name “brights” and forsaking the older designations would be an exercise in consciousness-raising (Dawkins 2003). Replacing derogatory terms of the past with more positive ones (or reappropriating them) is a tactic frequently employed by many once-stigmatized minority groups seeking to gain a place for themselves in American society, from African Americans to gay rights activists. One could even call such a move a standard strategy of contemporary identity politics. As Grant Farred (2000: 638) writes, “The struggle for identity has often turned on the capacity of marginalized groups to set their own political agenda, simultaneously acknowledge, reject, and reinscribe the disjuncture between ‘identities imposed’ and those desired.”

It reeks of elitism.

[Fumesucker]

6. "the fractious tendency of secularist groups"

That's a good one..

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump.

I said, "Don't do it!"
He said, "Nobody loves me."
I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes."
I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?"
He said, "A Christian."
I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?"
He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me, too! What franchise?"
He said, "Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."

I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

-Emo Philips