To restore sanity, restore diversity

Anyway. Wonderful post, Jason: I think it can really be summed up:

""For us, there is no contradiction between a life of reason - a life lived in discovery - and a life of religious devotion.""

(I'll note for Cobalt that I surely wouldn't be here if there was. *Because* I've always had a pretty vivid spiritual life, I take reason and science very seriously. Frankly, it came to the point, 'Ok, blanket disbelief in this stuff has officially become 'bad science.'' )

""The arguments now raging over whether faith and reason can coexist are really debates between the politically dominant monotheisms and the reactionary forms of atheism their excesses have spawned.""

This much is very true, and also for Cobalt, I'll note that it's *not* a 'tone argument,' but in fact goes to the *content.*

(Not that anything's an excuse for the tone. Especially when the content seems to be there only to *justify* the tone a priori: yeah, when someone comes along and claims 'I don't have to listen to you, but everyone has to listen to me when I say ignorant things at and about you.' To be quite honest, the 'tone' )

When we get 'caught in the crossfire' (Or, more like, considered 'fair targets' by both sides: the monotheists and theocrats consider us 'nonbelievers' or *worse,* ...often actively-evil just for not being of a religion like theirs: atheists generally try to paint us as either that, or savages, or charlatans, all while saying, 'You're to blame for this 'superstitionist' oppression!) To wit, everyone seems to have more say in what we're supposed to believe than we ourselves. That's where *we* get resentful. How 'politely' this is done is really secondary.

I assure you, no one's more concerned about the mono-theocratic hysteria and where it's taking and not taking the world and the nation than we. Just the things we get called on this very forum make that quite clear.

If you have a grievance with us, speak it. This 'Atheist-Fundie debate...' Isn't really about 'Truth.' It's about *authority.*

And we claim none over you. Save as fellow individual citizens and human beings.

Peace, man.

(further thoughts on the post below,)

You see, Cobalt, the idea *is* becoming pretty pervasive out there, that 'Being an Atheist *makes* you smarter and more factual, and better than theists and Buddhists and everyone else,' to wit, a lot of these 'New Atheists' seem to be kind of making some of the Fundies 'right' retroactively: to wit, a lot of these people are becoming *followers* of an '*ism.*' Which they seem to believe does something kind of 'magical' and needs to be 'spread.'

Gods know we can use more application of Reason out there... merely being atheist doesn't mean that you *are.*

The 'Religious' (ie Abrahamic authoritarian) position often *is* counter to reason, but that doesn't mean 'the atheist one' is more practical or reasonable:

"Everyone should just become atheist," (Sorry, the world can't wait, even if you could convert everyone. When the answer to everything becomes 'Abolish all religion,' that's just another 'Gospel.' )

"If Christians discriminate in civil marriage, cause they don't understand that civil marriage is civil, we should actually take away marriage! That'll be fair to LGBT people who want to be married!" (Sorry, that is very unhelpful, apart from being exactly the fear and premise the majority uses for an excuse to discriminate, thus not going to happen, it also perpetuates injustice and discrimination and the rule of one religion over others in a free country.)

Going to belief and how some atheists treat other minorities, Christians say, "Pagans have cruel and petty Gods and sacrifice innocents to things they fear and don't understand," ...and too many atheists *buy* it so they can use that to say, to Christians, "You're really no different from Pagans, awful as they are, cause we believed you when you said that cause it flatters us even more," )

When people of *any* faith who believe in secular government are going up against Fundies who keep claiming "Secular Government and Religious Freedom Are Hostile To Religion," ...it really doesn't help to have all those atheists out there claiming, "It sure is!"

This is one reason why multiple points of view, *a diversity,* is so important *to* a secular, free nation. You can't have reasoned debate without it, even in the 'name of atheism.'

From our point of view, 'Atheism' and 'Monotheism' are more like each other than like the rest of us: mostly behaving as though whether or not the Christian God exists is the most important thing in the world, (And as if that were the only possibility) ...all really through words and talk and subordinating most of the human experience to control of forebrains.

Meanwhile, tending to be pretty blind to emotional and dreaming life before we even get to 'the supernatural.' Some religious ideologies certainly will use the conscious mind and such to manipulate these experiences, but so can some ideologies.

We'll always have 'myths,' but we can choose them.

Cobalt:
""I'm not really qualified to act as an ambassador for all atheists, so I'll just say where I'm personally sitting. I feel a strong thread of, "Atheists have no right to be upset with me, because monotheists crap on me, too." ""

That's really not the point, certainly not in any sense of 'because:' monotheists and atheists 'crap on each other' all the time among themselves and each other, which doesn't mean either is 'right.'

Consider that the increase in all this 'New Atheist' rancor tends to in fact accuse Pagans and other religions of being 'just the same' as authoritarian monotheism, even if we don't even believe 'belief' does or says the same things.

""In my personal opinion, you don't have to be a fundamentalist Christian to be part of the thing atheists struggle against.""

Saying that doesn't mean your accusations or attacks or generalizations aren't *off base.* Any more than saying 'You believe in fairy tales' a lot means you have your *facts* straight. The simple fact is, though *monotheists* might teach unflattering things about other religions, this doesn't mean atheists have to believe them, even if they like the idea that everyone else in the world exists merely to be called 'more primitive even!'

"" You don't have to be a fundamentalist Christian to help them cut down another marginalized group. Fact is, a lot of people can't even mention atheism or atheists /in a positive light/ without also bringing up the stereotypical smug and callous joyless intolerant atheist zealot,""

A quick perusal of the other threads here seems to have shown you cheering for some of those very 'stereotypes,' actually.

Being an atheist doesn't *have* to mean 'soulless and greyfaced and in dour denial of anything but rational materialism, claiming one's 'belief in nothing' gives one some right to judge people by what they say about what they assume is their inner, spiritual, or emotional lives: as though it were up to you to judge there to begin with. But to be honest, that's what the noise level is sounding like more and more.

Gods know how many of the trolls really *are* atheist, but few I've known are really like that. Now it's become this thing like, 'I can claim I'm smarter/better than you cause I believe this,' and that's not a serious critique of what people *do,* especially when applied indiscriminately and inappropriately.

If you want to be all for reason, maybe you should encourage your fellow atheists to *use* it instead of cheering on those who think trying to insult people all the time is going to help something.

The fact is, when it comes to any given 'substantive' thing that's public business, at least, Pagans will generally be on the side of reason, over those claiming their 'belief and unitary 'Truth' overrides all.

It's getting noisy out there. While you're 'struggling against something,' mind your footing. :)

And what about the simple fact that not everyone can be reduced to monotheist or atheist, monotheist or polytheist, believer or non-believer? As a Priestess & Witch, I work with a number of Pagans who are atheists, as well as several who experience Jesus among their Deities.

The whole point is the dire need to get away from the either/or dichotomy society has painted itself into. In this, I agree with Jason completely.

"I have seen several prominent (and not-so-prominent) atheists and skeptics also attack and mock theists (including Pagans) who aren't part of the dominant faith lens that they are struggling against."

I'm not really qualified to act as an ambassador for all atheists, so I'll just say where I'm personally sitting. I feel a strong thread of, "Atheists have no right to be upset with me, because monotheists crap on me, too." Privileged and Oppressed are not clear categories of people, just roles. It's why women can be racist, or gay people can be classist.

In my personal opinion, you don't have to be a fundamentalist Christian to be part of the thing atheists struggle against. You don't have to be a fundamentalist Christian to help them cut down another marginalized group. Fact is, a lot of people can't even mention atheism or atheists /in a positive light/ without also bringing up the stereotypical smug and callous joyless intolerant atheist zealot, and making it clear that they're not talking about THOSE atheists, just the "good" ones.

Pagans get this too, so I'm guessing you understand already why this hurts. If every time somebody started to praise Wicca, would you appreciate knowing with absolute certainty that they were also about to say something about bloodthirsty pet-killing Satanist Santeros and how it isn't the author's intent to defend THOSE Pagans? You and I both know that those Pagans might as well not exist, and even the ones that do are no reflection on all the other Pagans--nor should they be.

I personally practice with a Wiccan group despite not being a literalist about it. This peaceable coexistence only seems to work as long as I pretend I don't hear the constant repetition of the dreaded Angry Atheist Zealot. Being the nice one, who will have a conversation about religion without calling anybody a peasant or a savage, I'm starting to get why people of color get so annoyed when they're praised as hardworking or articulate, because the unspoken implication seems to be, "unlike all those others."

Does that make sense? Yes, there are atheists who are judgmental and mean. There are people of color who are not well-spoken. There are poor people who aren't motivated to do better. There must be some Pagan somewhere who killed somebody's cat for their gods. That doesn't mean these need to be thrown in the face of whatever group we're talking about, as if they needed a reminder they can't escape the stereotype.

So I apologize for atheist was a jackass to you /before/ you brought up the stereotype we hate. I know it hurts to get slapped with somebody's anger that you don't feel responsible for. That doesn't excuse bringing that stereotype up as though it is so pertinent it simply MUST be covered every time the A-word is used. Unless you want to hear every time Paganism gets mentioned how relieved people are that they don't have to worry about their cats when you're around... not like those other Pagans.

Jason
Nice post. Thanks.

@Colbalt Blue,

"Responding to a group that's having a reaction to being marginalized by telling them that their anger makes them no better than the people who are actually doing the oppressing? Not a good start."

I have seen several prominent (and not-so-prominent) atheists and skeptics also attack and mock theists (including Pagans) who aren't part of the dominant faith lens that they are struggling against. If atheists want to build bridges with Pagans and other religious minorities then I'd like to see some good-will gestures in that direction. So indeed, not a good start. I'm all for starting again if skeptic and atheist groups are.

"Let's stop investing in the idea that this is some all-or-nothing game where the "winner" has to either be some form of conservative monotheism or smirking Dawkinsian atheism."

I think that this end would be well-served by fewer people repeating the nasty stereotype of the smug "reactionary" (a term that I hope I don't have to sit and problematize more explicitly than by putting scare quotes around it) atheist running around kicking religious people in the shins and gleefully screaming in their faces that there's no Santa Claus. The idea that religious people and skeptics are equally to blame for the unfriendly atmosphere toward discussing religion is an inaccurate conflation at best, and victim-blaming at worst. When holding a particular sort of faith is not a virtual prerequisite for holding public office in this country, it'll make more sense to say that dominionist religious people and the skeptics who speak against them are equally to blame for the atmosphere.

Until then, it's a good idea to remember that not only do skeptics not have the same political power in the USA as theists to determine the tone of a discussion, but slapping a group that's tired of being stepped on with a rehashed edition of the Tone Argument ("people would listen to you if you weren't so militant and reactionary and angry that you give them--and me--an excuse to blow you off!") isn't adding any goodwill either. Responding to a group that's having a reaction to being marginalized by telling them that their anger makes them no better than the people who are actually doing the oppressing? Not a good start.

This is not a matter of two crazy wacko zealot sides warring over who gets to oppress everybody and bend everybody to their will and ideology. Painting it that way just does the dominionists' work for them by reminding people yet again that atheists are arrogant and nasty jerks that nobody should listen to.

Stewart doesn't use sanity as a antonym for reason.

He uses it to imply that Beck and his followers are insane, as in mentally deranged. Stewart's humorous attack against Beck gets an extra lift by pandering to the hatred people hold toward the mentally ill.

I do not think that reason and sanity are opposite of religious belief. I think that when the two inform religious belief you have a more human, understanding, and compassionate religious belief. I don't think that religious belief is necessarily key to having reason or sanity; indeed, from my own admission, several of my religious experiences do not parse with consensus reality. However, the three things help keep me afloat, and my religious beliefs are powerful forces in my life that underly a good chunk of my decision making, but this is also checked by reason and sanity. I think that the three work far better together than apart.

As to your question "Instead of television shows propping up one conservative Christian against one militant atheist, and instead of political rallies spearheaded by religious demagogues, why don't we open the public square to true diversity of religio-philosophical opinion and thought?" this is why I am organizing an on-campus interfaith panel so we can actually have these discussions. I don't think that there needs to be an us vs. them mentality, nor an "I have the answer" mentality when even atheist philosophers will admit that they don't have the answer any more than Aquinas did. I think that there needs to be less hubris on all parts and admit that I cannot categorically tell you you are wrong to believe in "X" or "Y" and that my position is not only superior, but the right one. I mean, I care little if you think your faith/ideology/etc. are better than my own, but it is 'absolute truth' statements that I tend to abhor.