Category: Editorial

David Silverman of American Atheists, among others, was featured on a CNN special. One statement by David Silverman has caused a stir of controversy:

CNN Anchor: “I’ve interviewed men and women, they say, ‘I’m a humanist, I’m a freethinker, I’m a skeptic.’ So many people won’t say, ‘I’m an atheist.’ Is it all the same thing? Are these just softer terms for ‘I’m an atheist?'”

Silverman: “Yes. These are atheists who are afraid to use the word. And what are they doing? They’re lying.”

I’ll preface this by saying that I, personally, believe that anyone who lacks a belief in a god is an atheist, by definition. That said, I take issue with what David Silverman said because I think it grossly oversimplifies the multitude of reasons people prefer to not identify as an atheist and, in some cases, unfairly shifts the burden onto the person who chooses to not identify as an atheist – the burden of fixing the situation that makes them not adopt the “atheist” label.

Some (but not necessarily all) of these reasons are:

• Prejudices internal to the atheist movement: The atheist community and movement, in all its various forms and facets, is a product of its surrounding culture. In the U.S., that means our communities carry aspects of the culture in the U.S. – including, to at least some degree, its prejudicial baggage: racism, sexism, cissexism, ableism, heterosexism, classism, and others. It’s understandable, then, that an individual may resist or outright refuse to identify as an atheist because of their experiences with prejudiced atheists.
• Disagreement with “atheist leaders”: in the public’s eye, people such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, David Silverman, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and others are treated as “atheist leaders”, and with good reason – they are frequently in front of the camera and frequently treated by the media as the voices of the atheist movement. There are people who disagree with some or all things people in these positions have said and, perhaps because they feel these ideas predominante the atheist movement or because they merely do not wish others to associate them to these individuals, they do not identify as atheists.
• Prejudices external to the atheist movement: This is probably going to be an issue we’re all most commonly familiar with. The word “atheist” has a social stigma attached to it – people who are out as atheists can risk harassment, loss of friends, loss of family, loss of job, and worse. When someone is faced with the security of their livelihood and identifying outwardly as an atheist, they understandably choose the former.
• Lack of understanding of terms: Far too often, I’ve been asked, “Why do you have to identify as an atheist? Why not ‘agnostic’?” It may surprise you that this line of questioning isn’t limited to religious people – I’ve gotten it from people who identify as part of the nonreligious spectrum, too (“nones”, “agnostics”, et cetera). Fundamental to this question is the lack of understanding of what the gnostic spectrum and theistic spectrum mean; when I explain that I am an agnostic atheist and what that means, it often sparks a light of revelation in their eyes.

This is not an exhaustive list, but it is a list of some of the most-common reasons I come across in my conversations with people. What I want to punctuate this editorial with, though, is the fact that the response to these and many other reasons that people choose to not identify as an atheist is not to call them liars and to not shame them for choosing to identify as they wish.

What out atheists (and, critically, atheist leaders) should be doing is incorporating these reasons as feedback for potential ways to improve or correct the local communities and society as a whole such that we eliminate these causes that drive people away from the word “atheist”. It not only helps to empower the atheist movement by inviting people to join it, but it also helps ensure that the movement is a safe space for its members and that also empowers its members in the social justice causes they want to champion.

Not everyone who chooses to identify as something other than “atheist” will have reasons for doing so that we can solve, but there are many, many people who choose to avoid identifying with the “a-word” for reasons that we can – and should – work to solve.

By now, most of us have heard about the murder of three Muslim students at the University of North Carolina, which was followed shortly by Craig Hicks turning himself in for the murders.

More relevant to the atheist community is that Craig was an atheist; moreover, he was an anti-theist. The fact that this victims were Muslims and that Craig had posted publicly statements regarding Islam is a fact with inescapable implications – were these three murdered for being Muslims?

A popular explanation for the murder was a parking dispute, though the father of one of the victims has described this as the conclusion of an ongoing history of conflict between Hicks and his victims. Whether or not the investigation bears out that it really was a parking a dispute that led to the murder of three students is not what I want to focus this post on.

The murder of these three students and the suspected motive of their religion or their race (or a combination of both) being what led to their murders reflects a problem that much of American society has: a xenophobic intolerance of Muslims, be they American or non-American. If you haven’t ever heard or read of this happening, it’s not hard to find reliable accounts of this phenomenon. As a good starting point, I’d advise you check out Heina Dadhaboy’s blog for a couple of accounts.

The fact that there are many who are championing the parking dispute as a motive and not only failing to discuss religion or race as a possible motive, but foregoing the conversation altogether of the problem that American society (and, being a subset of it, American atheist communities) has with racism and xenophobia against Muslims should be disconcerting. Much as we might otherwise want, being an atheist does not imbue us with a transcendent wisdom that allows us to unshackle ourselves from the negative heirlooms of our culture. We have to be willing to address these problems and work to resolve them within our own communities if we really are working to create a safe, positive community for atheists.

I want to make it clear that KCAC works to create that safe, positive community. We do not suppress criticisms of Islam for its use in propagating harmful ideas, but, at the same time, we also wholeheartedly promote the basic dignity and respect that individuals, Muslim or otherwise, deserve. Pursuant to that, we stress that one cannot be held responsible or even be assessed by the actions and words of people who share the same religious identity. Anti-Muslim bigotry, and bigotry against people who are perceived as being Muslim, is a problem in our society that we recognize and work to discourage.

You may or may not have heard about how Ann Coulter’s attempt to capitalize on the “Bring Back Our Girls” meme has backfired pretty badly on her (or worked out well – I guess if she wanted to get her face out there, she succeeded).

There’s one picture, however, that I want to shine a light on to try and raise some awareness:

Let’s step back and ask ourselves: “What is the joke here?”

The answer is: “Ha, ha! Ann Coulter is a trans woman with a penis!”

Okay.

And?

What’s wrong with that? I mean, yes, it likely makes her a huge hypocrite (if we can safely extrapolate what her views of trans people are based on her other publicly-stated opinions), but her hypocrisy is not the joke here. The joke is: she is, physically, a man who expresses as a woman.

This wasn’t a socially-conservative site that shared this; it was the “Hot Liberals” Facebook page – presumably, a place for socially-liberal people to gather. While it may not surprise any of us (though we’ll still find it offensive) that a conservative Facebook page would share this, it’s telling that this was shared by a liberal-minded Facebook page, and what it tells us:

Humor can be an extremely effective, subtle, and subversive agent to propagate prejudices and discrimination.

Like I said: no one would be terribly surprised if this showed up on a Rush Limbaugh fan page, but, as allies of trans people, what’s our excuse? It typically boils down to simple ignorance – not taking the time to examine why there may be something not all-right with the punchline. The end effect, though, is still the same as, and possibly worse than, when this joke gets spread by social conservatives.

Ask yourself: what does it tell our friends and family who are trans and our allies who are trans when we spread jokes like these? What’s the end effect of when we propagate the idea that, for whatever reason, the idea of a trans woman with a penis is somehow a bad thing or such a person should be laughed at for merely being a woman with a penis?

I’m not on a rampage to condemn the people who shared this photo – I wish I could count on only one hand the number of times I have, in ignorance, repeated a joke that spread a problematic idea. However, I want to raise awareness that things like this show how easy it is for racism, sexism, anti-LGBT, and other forms of discrimination can weave their way into the humor of even the staunchest ally of a cause. Sometimes, it’s a really good idea to step back and assess whether a joke, as funny as it may seem now, is still funny when the people you care about have also seen it.

In light of the saddening decision by the U.S. Supreme Court decision to uphold prayer at town meetings, there seem to be some tones of “the atheists have been defeated!” going up in some circles. Putting aside the fact that the suit was filed by a Baptist group focused on secularism in government, this view that this has been a major strike in favor of religious liberties belies, it seems, an ignorance of history. I think we need to remind ourselves of the importance of religious freedom, and there’s no better lesson than history. As much as it may surprise many, the freedom to believe in God has not always been as safe in America as it is today:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas-true-history-of-religious-tolerance-61312684/

To quote some illustrative selections:

“Four Quakers were hanged in Boston between 1659 and 1661 for persistently returning to the city to stand up for their beliefs.”

“In Massachusetts, only Christians were allowed to hold public office, and Catholics were allowed to do so only after renouncing papal authority. In 1777, New York State’s constitution banned Catholics from public office (and would do so until 1806). In Maryland, Catholics had full civil rights, but Jews did not. Delaware required an oath affirming belief in the Trinity. Several states, including Massachusetts and South Carolina, had official, state-supported churches.”

When a government is allowed to prioritize one form of religion over others, sometimes to the explicit exclusion of others, the only ones who benefit are those who are in the majority or hold the most power – which is all well and good for them until they lose that privileged status and become at the mercy of those they persecuted and marginalized (see: Iraq and the inversion of power of the Shia & Sunnis).

The issue of and importance of a secular government, while one that atheists should be concerned about, is not an issue that should be or is, by any measure, limited to one that should concern only atheists. If not out of compassion for the people around you, then act at least out of self-interest to try and ensure that the day never comes where you find yourself on the other end of the hammer or pike of marginalization and persecution that has been previously wielded against those not in power.