Spoiled Rotten...

I'm not one of the big atheist bloggers, but I have in my own small way run into one of the situations that they face constantly.  It unfolds like this.  First some Christian fundamentalist mouthpiece says something stupid like evolution is a lie or god hates fags.  Then an atheist blogger writes about it, pointing out that religion makes people say some awfully ignorant and hateful things.  Then religious liberals attack the liberal blogger in comments asserting that "not all religious people are like that," and that the blogger should be nicer to religious people in order to avoid antagonizing potential allies.

This happens over and over -- and it's totally backward.

It starts with a grave confusion between religious criticism and religious intolerance.  Religious intolerance is the attempt to confer different rights or status to individuals based based on their religious beliefs.  Religious criticism is a thesis, comment or report attacking the content of a religious belief system.  Confusing the two results in the argument that to be tolerant we must defer to religion on issues that religious people deem sacred.  Religious tolerance is the very basis of our secular democracy; religious deference is errant nonsense that threatens to undermine it.

Even if I think your beliefs are absurd, I will defend with my life your right to hold them.  If anyone attempts to restrict your freedoms or undermine your legal rights because of your religious convictions I will be right there fighting with you, back to back, tooth and nail until your rights are restored.  Likewise, if anyone attempts to grant you or anyone else special rights or legal status based only on religious beliefs I will fight that too.  For granting special status to some necessarily restricts the freedoms of others.

And this is where religious deference is dangerous.  It is certainly better not to gratuitously offend people you want or need to get along with, like friends or co-workers, and since many theists are thin-skinned about their gods it's often best not to make fun of them.  It's also generally better to avoid saying things that might inflame religious hatred.  But this is not about tolerance -- it's about politeness.  A general code of civility does not mean that religious beliefs have a special immunity from being offended.  Such a right would lead to things like pharmacists denying to dispense desperately needed medication because of their own personal religious beliefs.  And that is genuine religious intolerance.

Liberals often bend over backward to be polite in the hope of defusing the right-wing talking point that liberals are hostile to religion.  In fact the opposite is true.  When we argue about religion, when we raise our voices and manage to gore each other scared cows, even when we ridicule and mock each others beliefs, that's when we're truly celebrating our tolerance.  We live in a country where people can embrace deeply antithetical worldviews and no one pays a cost.  Well, no civil cost -- there are still social costs.  For atheists.

But worse than the fallacious equivocation, these objections from religion defenders are utterly counterproductive.  When we point out an outrage being committed in the name of some religion or other, don't attack us for pointing it out.  Attack the people committing the outrage!  It's fundamentalists who are giving religion a bad name, not freethinking bloggers.  We're just the messenger.

Sure, not all religious people do these things.  We know that.  But some do, and they're not Branch Davidians or other cultists -- these are major Christian sects operating out in the open to subvert science, education and the Constitution.  They want nothing less than to remake America in their own intolerant image.  If you are religious and this bothers you, good.  If you don't want these nutjobs tarring your religiosity, denounce them.  Fight back.  If you love and support science, start or join a coalition of enlightened churches to defeat the forces that darken our public discourse and sow confusion in our schools.  Those that exist would sorely love to add your voice.  You want to be respected for your beliefs by atheist bloggers?  If you go after these people with the same tenacity with which you go after liberals who truly love tolerance, we'll be saying "Amen, brother."

However.  If as a so-called liberal Christian you instead continue to whine like a spoiled child when you feel that something has offended your delicate sensibilities, then I have no sympathy for you.  You say atheists need to be nicer to you and not dare to insult your cherished beliefs, for risk of losing an ally.  But you're not an ally, and precisely because you divorce yourself in your own mind from these people and take offense if anyone suggests a connection.  The connection, dear theists, is your insistence on special treatment, special deference, because of your religion.  You are not helping the situation, you are the situation.

Yes we atheists tar you theists with a wide brush; we always have and always will.  But instead of trying to get us to narrow the brush, you should work on making the brush less toxic.

- jack*

Comments

[Sirkowski]

So true!

[Peggy Jacobs]

My father was an atheist. At his memorial, we had live music, provided by a family friend who is a retired professor of music. He suggested a setting by Mendelsohn of one the Psalms - the one with lines about wishing for "the wings of a dove." It's a beautiful song, and he found a wonderful soprano to sing it for us. The psalm is an outburst of grief with a wistful, calm conclusion, as though the mourner felt somewhat better just for having expressed the sorrow. That's what is in the music, at least. The words are a bit weird for an atheist's memorial, and include a complaint about harassment by the "armies of the godless." When we got to that part my son and I looked at one another, and I know we were thinking the same thing, because we talked about it afterword: "That would be us." Also, "We have armies?" And my mother had the lyrics printed in the program; I can't think why. She's as godless as the rest of us.
The family could have rejected the piece when our friend first suggested it, but then we would have missed out on a beautiful performance. I'm not sure what I think about the whole thing; only it seems to be true that a lot more tolerance is expected of us atheists than is expected of religious people, and maybe that is a reflection of the fact that we are more tolerant, because we have more sense.

[vjack]

Great post! You raise some very important issues about how those of us who value reason should respond to those who prefer faith instead. You are absolutely right that confusion over the intolerance vs. criticism issue is widespread and problematic.

I guess where we differ is that I would not risk my life in defense of someone's right to hold absurd beliefs, especially if such beliefs have been destructive throughout history. Some beliefs are worth fighting for, but maladaptive beliefs are not among them.

I think what we are dealing with here is the potential conflict of everyone's rights. A christian does and should have the right to speak his/her mind. I do not and should not have the right not to be offended by it. However, if I am offended by it, I have the same right as the Christian to speak out.

[RickU]

Beautifully stated for the most part...except for the right to be offended part. You DO have the right to take offense...you don't have the right to do anything but not pay attention to it.

[King Aardvark]

Peggy, I wish I had an army...

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

The only point I want to add is that it worries me when atheists -- as I proudly am -- in effect support one of the most dangerous arguments of the mad Christianists, that Christianity=Fundamentalism, Radical Republican politics, anti-evolutionism, homophobia etc.
(The same thing occurs in Islam when there is an attempt to equate that pack of absurdity with the more absurd and dangerous Wahhabism/Selafism.)
This is doubly dangerous. First, because of the tendencies of both religions to teach that 'we are all sinners' there is an appeal to the "Christian person on the street" to follow those who claim to be more strict, more 'holy' more 'in tune with the Bible.' (This is, again, even more dangerous in Islam, where the appeal is more blatant and the results more violent and dangerous.)
Furthermore, there ARE other important issues out there, issues where we can find common cause with the believer. (Thus, if we are in Ohio, we'd be committing a disastrous mistake if we equated Strickland -- who is a minister -- with Blackwell, who is a corrupt and dangerous Christianist/Dominionist and refused to support the sane Christian -- even if his beliefs are based on the unsane Christianity -- over the poisonous one.)