Social pressure? What social pressure?
Greta Christina observes that atheism is not always greeted with open arms. It doesn’t always get even a mere hostile silence. It sometimes gets just plain forcible rejection. Just good old “no you may not.” Just “sit down and be quiet you hateful atheist you.”
Resistance to atheist groups from high school administrators, while not universal, is depressingly common. According to JT Eberhard, campus organizer and high school specialist for the SSA, “Most of them seem to elect to try and drag their feet until the interested students either lose interest or graduate. The ‘objections’ are varied. I’ve heard ‘it would be too controversial’, ‘all clubs are secular’, ‘other groups already do the same thing’, and a whole host of other lame reasons.”
And this, you see, is one reason we explicit atheists fight back. It’s not necessarily because we are bullied or oppressed ourselves, it’s because a view that we think right and important and under-represented gets treated like a contaminant.
The need for high school atheist groups — or indeed, for atheist groups of any kind — is baffling to many people. When USA Today ran an article about Brian Lisco and the SSA’s new high school program, it was met with a barrage of hostile comments… partly in the hysterical “Satan is trolling for the souls of our youth!” vein, but largely with puzzlement and snark, along the lines of, “Why would anyone need a club to talk about what they don’t believe in?”
But the powerful resistance these groups have encountered makes the need for them all too clear. The reality is that atheists are the most distrusted and disliked of all minority groups — more than blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Muslims, immigrants, and gays and lesbians — and polls show that Americans are less likely to vote for an atheist than they are for a person in any other minority or marginalized category.
All very recursive. We need groups because of the marginalization, so the attempts to set up groups are marginalized, so we need the groups all the more, so; repeat until tired.
Countering anti-atheist myths is important even when the bigotry isn’t overtly threatening or grotesque. Myths about atheists are widespread, even among more moderate and progressive believers. Countering those myths requires visibility — and visibility is more effective with organization. Groups can provide emotional support to people who are coming out when they face opposition and hatred… and groups can make visibility easier to accomplish. As Eberhard points out, “One of the best ways gay students have acquired a greater level of acceptance is by ‘coming out’, so that many people are now realizing that they not only know gay people but that they like gay people. So it must be with atheists. We need to encourage non-believing students to be proud of who they are if the social stigma is to ever be dissolved.”
And not just in high school. Even among adults, even among meta-adults (which is to say, old adults), myths about atheists are widespread, even among more moderate and progressive believers, and even among actual atheists. Atheists who hate atheists; talk about internalization.
So – let the groups spread – let people grow up familiar with atheists – and eventually the automatic hatred will fade away.
Funny I always wondered why’d you want to get together to basically go to church after school. This was before I realized talking to individuals of a similar mindsight about things going on in your life had several theurapuetic uses. Namely dealing with all the bs in high school.
Heh.
There’s also the fact that one is likely to have a similar take on a lot of things. Goddy takes can be different from ungoddy takes. That’s not always true, especially with more “moderate” or liberal theists, but…it’s true pretty often. In any case there’s a certain confidence that there won’t be a goddy take. That by itself can be valuable, especially in places where a goddy take is assumed and pervasive. [shudder]
I wrote this earlier today, in response to the usual ‘strident, militant’ atheist comments we all encounter when we dare speak up:
I have an hypothesis for chrisitans’ hatred of atheists, their taking umbrage at the atheists’ very existence:
1) On some level atheism communicates that christians’ parents lied to them during the time when they were most vulnerable. Your mommy and daddy lied to you, and probably continue to do so, about the all-loving father figure.
2) Moreover, atheism tells christians that their idea of how the world works is wrong. There is no real magic, and no afterlife.
On the other hand, the very act of being christian tells atheists that they will be tortured in hell forever.
Lotta meta going on, sometimes without a word being said.
There are groups for vegetarians. Do they spend their time talking about how they don’t eat meat? I don’t suppose this means that vegetarian groups are meaningless.
There are groups for alcoholics. Do they spend their time talking about how they do not drink? I think they do. Does this mean that AA and Rational Recovery are meaningless (without regard to their effectiveness)?
The fantasy that the “I’m an atheist but…” proponents are pushing is that we atheists are privileged and have no grievance worthy of consideration. But this is plainly false, and it shows how the accomodationist mindset can blind one to ugly realities.
I wonder if the US strong dislike and distrust of atheists came in part from the old red menace stuff. You know, the godless commie baby killers from Russia will take away your freedom.
Martha, some of it, sure. That’s why there’s “under God” [retch] in “the pledge of allegiance” [retch]. Put in at the height of the cold war.
Faith is understood as a virtue, no different, categorically, from honesty (irony noted) and compassion. And you don’t think about whether the truth claims make any sense. That’s the point, actually. So, when someone dismisses faith, they are putting themselves in opposition to something very, very important.
Accommodation involves recognizing, and respecting, this.
isn’t the objective to keep the hate and misconceptions alive? because otherwise people will begin to question their faith?
@7 and 8
Oh my yes. In the States, cold warrior-type thinking is still with us. Very much so. You hear it in a lot of the Teabagger rhetoric, and in the Reagan worship.
Back in the 50s, the whole “Godless Communist” thing served as a kind of shorthand for people who didn’t know or understand what Communism was. The implication was, “Look, all you have to know is that they’re Godless. Get it? Godless equals evil—we all know that!” Ann Coulter titled her last book Godless: The Church of Liberalism.
Perhaps we need to be visibly more anti-communist too. Believers seem to equate atheism with communism. That’s rather like equating Christianity with Islam.
re: “goddy” takes
I think it affects more than we generally realise. Hitchens has spoken about showing up at debates and believing that his presence there is the result of billions of years of unorchestrated coincidences, whereas the kind of opponent he usually gets will believe that his presence there is part of a divine plan, with no accidents involved. There’s a kind of bottom line of assumptions going on here that continues to set us apart from theists; we don’t believe there’s an absolute written down anywhere to which we can be in defiance. We tend to believe that making up the rules for our existence is our responsibility, like it or not, whereas those who envision an intelligence, no matter how vaguely defined, setting everything in motion have difficulty ascribing no intentions to it, which are transgressible. Homosexuality elicits that kind of difference in thinking a lot; if it’s a reproductive dead end, it’s got to be “against” nature, right? Talk about not really believing in freedom of choice…
Something I just wrote reminded me of the Hitchens/Harris debate against the rabbis on the question of an afterlife, which is now online and well worth the 97 or so minutes. One of my favourite moments is a joke from Hitchens (paraphrased) about a religious Christian admitted to heaven for having ministered so well to the suffering in his lifetime. When told this, he says, still the genuinely caring type, surely his presence is more required in hell, where there are people whose suffering needs to be alleviated. The reaction from his celestial interlocutor is “You just don’t get it, do you?”
Oh, yes, the link: http://www.jewishtvnetwork.com/?bcpid=533363107&bctid=802338105001
Stewart, quite, which is why atheism in fact is worth thinking about. One of the anti-gnu tropes is that it’s such a dead horse, why bother, etc etc, but in fact the implications are interesting. The differences between the takes are interesting.
Why do Christians hate atheists so much? I think something like this might factor into it (not for the squeamish):
Imagine that there were a large number of people publishing bestselling nonfiction books about, and giving talks about how great it is, to date 14-year-olds. Nothing illegal — everything is consistent with age-of-consent laws in their district (Alabama? Wherever) and all that — but still, ugh. And they’re telling everyone that there’s no need to restrict yourself to older people, and that countries and states with higher ages of consent are backwards and just plain dangerous.
Now, we all (hopefully) agree that the idea is repugnant. We’re basing that on an assessment that includes relative life experience and ability to give informed consent, etc.
OK, now look at things from a theist’s viewpoint. Their moral assessments are based on interpretation of that they believe to be the words of an all-powerful God who sets the rules. Based on those assessments, not giving glory to God is worse than molesting teenagers. Maybe it’s legal in some places, but it’s morally wrong and shouldn’t be encouraged to spread, and the people promoting it are downright disgusting in their flagrant disregard of morals.
Until some sort of universally-agreed-upon meta-ethical construct can be made to bridge the gap between their moral/ethical judgments and ours, there is no hard way to convince anyone that the two scenarios outlined are not exactly equivalent to one another. That’s why I hope Harris’ work will be important in the future, although he’s off to a slow start.