It is incredibly rare that political pundits pay much attention to Atheists and unfortunately when they do they tend to reinforce rather than dispel ignorance and intolerance. I understand how headlines work but a recent piece in The Hill still is a bit grating. "Obama's atheist problem" is not a particularly good title to start with. It implies he has a problem with us, which would further imply that he actually thinks much about atheist to begin with. I doubt that. Occasionally inserting a vague throw-away line into a speech or two, though better than nothing, doesn't show that much concern or thought.
Mellman's initial concern is both superficial and a conflation.
"Fresh Gallup data make it clear that President Obama is hemorrhaging support among white atheists. The president’s vote is down 10 points since 2008 among whites who profess no religion..."
Not identifying with a specific religion does not automatically make someone an atheist. The more generic term "non-religious" tends to include plenty of theists. The notion that he is "hemorrhaging" atheist support is premature and misleading. If by support Mellman means votes I wouldn't worry too much. If he means favorable rating then he might have more of a point. Pointing out that Obama has been more favorable toward atheists than previous presidents is like saying it's better to have one form of cancer over another. Sure, it is technically true but it would be better not to have cancer at all. Vague, ineffectual support may be counted as an emotional victory but serves no real practical purpose.
As an atheist (as a liberal I have a whole other set of problems with him) Obama only made one campaign promise that I cared for in any way. Even his claim to reform the "Faith Based Initiative" fell way short of what it should have been. Within months of taking office he backed away from his pathetically weak promise. Mellman is incredibly naive to think Obama had much support among atheists over issues directly related to being an atheist. I'd be surprised if he got many votes from atheists beyond the reason that the other guy would have been even worse on such issues. That, of course, assumes an atheist point of view even came into play. Being atheist does not say much about an individual' politics. There seem to be two sizable political camps within atheism: liberals and libertarians. The former tends to favor Democrats while the latter seems to favor Republicans.
Mellman still seems to think that for Obama, "Reclaiming the godless must be a priority." I'd love it if that were true but I have no reason to reach such a conclusion. He has yet to pay much attention to us. Put bluntly, he doesn't have that much reason to do so. We don't make up that much of the electorate. By we, I mean actual atheists not the non-religious. It is for that reason that groups like the National Atheist Party have emerged (I am a member). Unfortunately, since the NAP is in its infancy it will probably be a few more years before it will be able to exert much influence. Until we are able to pool our resources and efforts more effectively, which we are moving towards, I see my self voting the way I have always voted. I'll cast my vote for the lesser of two assholes.
I look forward to the day I can cast a ballot for a candidate I actually want. It will take some work but I think it can be done. If you're interested in working towards such a goal at least take a look at the NAP.
Showing posts with label Non-Believers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Non-Believers. Show all posts
Friday, July 6, 2012
Friday, June 15, 2012
Categorizing Non-Belivers and Atheists
The idea of creating a set of sub-categories or classifications within atheism is not new. Others have commented on the possible usefulness of providing narrower labels within atheism. I can see how it might be useful but I can also see ways in which such a system of labels could perpetuate a variety of myths and stereotypes or be used to further denigrate and marginalize us. Two recent pieces reemphasized these pitfalls.
An anonymous woman wrote in to the New Haven Register on June 2 with what she seemed to think was a novel idea. Her intentions seemed to be positive but she definitely had not thought very deeply about the labels she was suggesting. She only offered three but each had some problems. "Observant Atheist" reflected both the title of the short piece, "Atheist 'denominations' helpful, reader suggests", and her ignorance. She claims to be an atheist herself but then talks about her desire "to find the divine in myself." She also seems to fall for the false notion that atheism is itself a religion. It isn't.*
"Classic Atheists" seems rather redundant. It sounds like she intends it to be the default/catchall for those who don't fit the other two labels. Her final label is as ridiculous as the first. "Science as Religion Atheist" aside from being an awkward mouthful is an oxymoron. It plays into the myth of "scientism." Science, as defined by the scientific process, cannot be a religion. Though there are some ignorant fools who happen to be atheists, I find it hard to believe that those who have enough respect and interest in science to be placed in this label would ever use it. Lie me they would probably find it an insultingly preposterous term. Her labels may have been intended to help but they don't.
Valerie Tarico's June 3rd Alternet piece, "No Religion? 7 Types of Nonbelievers", is longer and more thoughtful. However, it too has some glaring shortfalls. I particularly disliked her second type, "anti-theist." There are two major implications that are both blatantly wrong. First, the term suggests that atheists are the only anti-theists. I am unaware of anyone doing a study on this subtopic but I would be genuinely shocked if the number of theists who were also anti-theists did not outnumber the atheists who might fit the term. Think about it. Who has harassed and out right persecuted Jews, Muslims, and Christians the most? It isn't atheists. All three groups have done far more harm to each other than atheists ever have. I'd also object to the term on semantics. Most atheist I'm aware of are not actually opposed to theists. "Anti-theism", though still misleading, is a little more accurate. We tend to despise the institution of religion not religious people.
The next handful of terms (Agnostic, Skeptic, Freethinker, Humanist) are already in wide use. Her usage of them would probably only make matters more confusing since it is not necessary to be non-religious to fit one or more of them. Non-religious individuals are far more likely to identify with those terms but that's not quite the same. Another problem is that if you are trying to delineate types of non-believers these terms are non-starters. It is quite easy to fit into each label simultaneously. What's the purpose if it doesn't distinguish?
Her final term is just plain annoying. Pantheist as a term can be debated about its true definition not unlike the other terms Tarico tries using. However, Pantheism is still a religious outlook. Tarico herself alludes to this in an otherwise mistaken comment, "...self-described humanists seek to reclaim the ethical and communitarian aspects of religion, pantheist canter in on the spiritual heart of faith..." I consider myself a humanist but I do not seek to "reclaim" anything from religion. There is nothing innate to religion that I want or need. It implies that certain values and traits are inseparable from religion. Bullshit. Anthropomorphizing the universe, which pantheism frequently does, is not something I would associate with non-belief.
If any useful labels are ever going to be produced, I'm not convinced that's possible, it should be non-believers who come up with them.
*The fact that atheism is not a belief system would make classifying it with labels somewhat pointless. Atheists are rather individualistic and fractious but there are some areas that we tend to gravitate toward. In any case, any labels or categories would have to be used loosely and would only be of value when comparing atheists to other atheists.
An anonymous woman wrote in to the New Haven Register on June 2 with what she seemed to think was a novel idea. Her intentions seemed to be positive but she definitely had not thought very deeply about the labels she was suggesting. She only offered three but each had some problems. "Observant Atheist" reflected both the title of the short piece, "Atheist 'denominations' helpful, reader suggests", and her ignorance. She claims to be an atheist herself but then talks about her desire "to find the divine in myself." She also seems to fall for the false notion that atheism is itself a religion. It isn't.*
"Classic Atheists" seems rather redundant. It sounds like she intends it to be the default/catchall for those who don't fit the other two labels. Her final label is as ridiculous as the first. "Science as Religion Atheist" aside from being an awkward mouthful is an oxymoron. It plays into the myth of "scientism." Science, as defined by the scientific process, cannot be a religion. Though there are some ignorant fools who happen to be atheists, I find it hard to believe that those who have enough respect and interest in science to be placed in this label would ever use it. Lie me they would probably find it an insultingly preposterous term. Her labels may have been intended to help but they don't.
Valerie Tarico's June 3rd Alternet piece, "No Religion? 7 Types of Nonbelievers", is longer and more thoughtful. However, it too has some glaring shortfalls. I particularly disliked her second type, "anti-theist." There are two major implications that are both blatantly wrong. First, the term suggests that atheists are the only anti-theists. I am unaware of anyone doing a study on this subtopic but I would be genuinely shocked if the number of theists who were also anti-theists did not outnumber the atheists who might fit the term. Think about it. Who has harassed and out right persecuted Jews, Muslims, and Christians the most? It isn't atheists. All three groups have done far more harm to each other than atheists ever have. I'd also object to the term on semantics. Most atheist I'm aware of are not actually opposed to theists. "Anti-theism", though still misleading, is a little more accurate. We tend to despise the institution of religion not religious people.
The next handful of terms (Agnostic, Skeptic, Freethinker, Humanist) are already in wide use. Her usage of them would probably only make matters more confusing since it is not necessary to be non-religious to fit one or more of them. Non-religious individuals are far more likely to identify with those terms but that's not quite the same. Another problem is that if you are trying to delineate types of non-believers these terms are non-starters. It is quite easy to fit into each label simultaneously. What's the purpose if it doesn't distinguish?
Her final term is just plain annoying. Pantheist as a term can be debated about its true definition not unlike the other terms Tarico tries using. However, Pantheism is still a religious outlook. Tarico herself alludes to this in an otherwise mistaken comment, "...self-described humanists seek to reclaim the ethical and communitarian aspects of religion, pantheist canter in on the spiritual heart of faith..." I consider myself a humanist but I do not seek to "reclaim" anything from religion. There is nothing innate to religion that I want or need. It implies that certain values and traits are inseparable from religion. Bullshit. Anthropomorphizing the universe, which pantheism frequently does, is not something I would associate with non-belief.
If any useful labels are ever going to be produced, I'm not convinced that's possible, it should be non-believers who come up with them.
*The fact that atheism is not a belief system would make classifying it with labels somewhat pointless. Atheists are rather individualistic and fractious but there are some areas that we tend to gravitate toward. In any case, any labels or categories would have to be used loosely and would only be of value when comparing atheists to other atheists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)