Where the rabble-rousers come in
Victor Stenger sends encouragement.
It’s time for secularists to stop sucking up to Christians–and Muslims and Jews and Hindus and any others who claim they have some sacred right to decide what kind of society the rest of us must live in–what a human being can do with her own body. The good news is that young people are joining the rising atheist movement in increasing numbers. I have not met one yet who is an accommodationist.
That is indeed what it is time for. This does not mean, contrary to what accommodationists keep saying (whether they believe it or not, and I suspect they mostly don’t), it is time for us to call believers idiots whenever we encounter them. It means it is time to stop sucking up to them by pretending to think their religious beliefs are entirely reasonable and well-founded.
I think there is room, indeed a need, for both the accommodationist and confrontationist approaches. If you look at the history of every great social movement–the abolition of slavery, women’s rights, civil rights, gay rights–you will see both components. There are people who try to work within the system to make changes. They often succeed, but usually at a snail’s pace–too slow to satisfy the millions who are impatient to have their inherent rights recognized by the power structure.And that’s where the rabble-rousers come in. They confront the system and eventually win the hearts of a majority that becomes awakened to the basic justice of the cause. They also give more power to those trying to work within the system.
We’re needed. We have a part to play. We’re not leaving.
It’s almost giving the accommodationists too much credit to say they want “work within the system to make changes.” When I listen to someone like Mooney, it’s clear he doesn’t want what I want. He doesn’t want, for example, an environment in which someone can forthrightly criticize religious dogma without being demonized. Hell, he doesn’t think we should criticize religion too much because it “turns people off.” I don’t think religious silliness should be treated with kid gloves; he does. Call me strident, but people who say If truth and reason offends too many people, pipe down with all that truth and reason can hardly be counted among the defenders of truth and reason.
“Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground.” – Frederick Douglass
Here’s Greta Christina extrapolating her learning from many years in the LGBT movement to the atheist / secularist movement, earlier this year. She’s speaking to students at an event organised by America’s national Secular Student Alliance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YxdM1WChHc
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Skeptic South Africa, Ophelia Benson. Ophelia Benson said: Where the rabble-rousers come in http://dlvr.it/7hQ8X […]
The debate about accomadationism (if that’s a word) confuses me because I’m not sure what the label means and more particularly whether it applies to me. My atheism is rock solid. As far as I’m concerned religious beliefs are totally irrational and that gods don’t exist is a well established fact. I’ll defend these believes when they are relevant.
I’ll explain why I’m not sure whether I’m an accomadationist.
The comparison with the Civil Rights movement is an interesting one. The Civil Rights movement was lead largely by clergy (of many faiths). I was (an insignificant) atheist member of the movement and at the time I was uncomfortable with the fact that the leaders were clergy.
Even today I work with religious organizations and clergy on causes that I believe in without confronting them about religious beliefs. I recently supported a former minister for local office, and I’m working on an immigration issue with Church groups.
So I know where I stand and I know what’s important to me, but am I an accommodationist?
Personally, I’m all for accommodation, as long as it doesn’t get too extreme.
@Jerry Schwarz
I suspect all gnu atheists mix and work with theists without confronting them, most of the time. I know I do. An accommodationist would ask an atheist to keep quiet if politically useful moderate theists say something or do something that is wrong, lest they be disaffected from the secular or scientific project.
Because they’re delicate flowers like that, apparently.
I don’t think so. The appropriate questions are whether or not you believe that science and religion are both useful ways to search for truth, or whether you are prepared to pretend that they are when asked. If not, then I don’t think you can be called an accommodationist.
Jerry
The problem is that religious leaders are civil rights workers one week and oppressors the next. St Paul says interesting things, like: slaves should obey their masters, but masters should be nice to slaves; he also says that “in Christ” there is no difference between a slave and a free person. And here exactly is what is wrong. You can regard him as saying that all people are equal one week, and next week you can say that people are only equal in god’s sight, and if they accept Jesus Christ; and that still doesn’t mean that they are equal on planet earth.
So the mediaeval church can effectively ban slavery (but not feudal serfdom), only for slavery to be brought back later by christians in need of workers on their plantations (though they paid their domestic servants at home). And all thanks to St Paul (who, in fairness, was probably not bad for a Roman citizen). And consider how christian slave owners allowed their slaves to become christians themselves, knowing how much the doctrine of salvation through meekness and humility would influence them, without themselves feeling any less christian.
Religion is a double-edged sword. Scriptures are intrinsically corrupting, merely by the fact that they are regarded as scriptures, and therefore a challenge to the humble believer, an opening to the opportunist, and a justification to the power-hungry bastard who might be all three.
Sorry, shouting again. I really must learn to be more accommodating…
It’s also worth remembering that a substantial portion of the Civil Rights movement was unhappy with the clerical-heavy leadership. I think that’s part of the reason SNCC was formed, though I could be wrong about that.
Being a pig-iggorant forinner I had to google SNCC, and have discovered two interesting things. One is that one can be ever so polite and still, sorry and all that, not do as one is told and the other is that one can be positively unpleasant and absolutely not do as one is told and shut up or else. Neither is what I would call accommodationist, let alone accommodating. (Sigh) There are always nuances, aren’t there?
Also, as Christopher Hitchens has pointed out [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbRhehqhAjU], some of the important figures in the Civil Right Movement were secular socialists. These people are often not credited. While the CRM was overwhelmingly rooted in the church, there were plenty of secular people who played pivotal roles.
The proponents of the CRM were rooted in the southern Black-American church, sure, but let’s not forget that the enemies of the CRM were rooted in the southern White church. Survey the prominent segregationists of the time who were lined up in opposition to the CRM—you’d be lucky to find a single one that didn’t self-identify as “Christian.”
Ah – it’s worth knowing what SNCC (it’s pronounced snick) is if only so that one can fully get who John Lewis is, and why it was so moving to see him on the platform at the inauguration. Pardon sentimentality.
Stenger also wrote, “I have great hope that in perhaps another generation America will have joined Europe and the rest of the developed world in shucking off the rusty chains of ancient superstition…”
Perhaps he is being a bit optimistic in thinking Europe has entirely liberated itself from the ancient superstitions. Just look at Italy.
[…] h/t: Butterflies and Wheels […]
“Perhaps he is being a bit optimistic in thinking Europe has entirely liberated itself from the ancient superstitions. Just look at Italy.”
Or Ireland, for that matter. Still, the clerical influence is literally dying off in both those countries. The priesthood has a terrible (by which I mean fantastic!) shortage of local candidates. Even catholic run schools have only nominal involvement of clerical teachers these days (not like in my day with those hordes of nuns and brothers and their sharpened rulers and ‘leathers’.) The change in religion is slow in Europe but definite. I think it simply requires the question to be openly posed for young people to come to their own conclusions. I look at the US situation and think that, despite the pessimism of many that religion will ever relinquish its hold on that nation, there are plenty of signs that the seeds have been sown. Ironically I think the teeth-gnashing of the faitheists has been a help to us in creating more exposure to the atheist cause than they actually intend. Its a bit like the unintended consequences of the atheist bus campaign where most of the publicity generated has been caused by religiots that only serve to highlight how calm and open atheists are compared to the hyserical complainants.
Thank you very much, Ophelia, for improving my education. I imagine you are familiar with these below, but for others like me these links may be useful.
Original text of speech at March on Washington, August 1963
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/641.html
A reading of same
http://vimeo.com/1275290
Text of another speech
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Education+and+Public+Programs/Profile+in+Courage+Award/Award+Recipients/John+Lewis/Acceptance+Speech+by+Congressman+John+Lewis.htm
The man himself
http://vodpod.com/watch/973064-dnc-day-four-john-lewiss-speech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpKeHP_sKug&feature=related
In the case of Mooney, you are probably right. There are others who would fall into the accomodationist camp for whom this probably is a good description after all, e.g. Phil Plait, Bruce Hood, etc. Bruce Hood in particular, I think, because he has never called out the “rabble-rousers” for being too strident — he only says that he chooses not to stir the pot when dealing with believers. That’s “working within the system” I would say.
My pleasure, Gordon, thanks for the links.