Atheists + Gathering = Evil

Atheists + Gathering = Evil. Unfortunately, to many theists this simple equation is a foregone conclusion. Adam Lee did a pretty decent job summarizing the Christian right's reaction to the recent Reason Rally. I find it difficult to fathom why there are any atheists left that keep insisting that the tone with which we speak matters. As far as I can tell the rally was well organized, very civil, and at no point advocated unprovoked hostility towards believers. Yet, every believing pundit who commented on the gathering made it out to be a horde of barbarians with the sole agenda of wreaking havoc on all around them.

Lets face it, when it comes to atheists it does not matter in the least what we say or how we say it. The fact that we exist and are willing to say we do is all the religious right need to viciously attack us. I am in no way condoning violence but I am say fuck being polite. If they are going to be rude to us and then slap us with the label why not own it. I'm not Christian. I don't have to go by that "turn the other cheek" bullshit (not that they do, either).

Misused and Abused: Militant

"Militant Atheist" is yet another term that is incredibly misleading and loaded with a variety of myths and prejudices. Usually, it is used to identify some of the more publicly outspoken atheists. If those using it mean to imply that the person being labeled is confident or forceful there are better ways of indicating it (like the words I just used). But the term implies violence.

I am unaware of any atheist advocating the use of violence to advance atheist ideas or issues. It is true that Chris Hedges has falsely accused Sam Harris of doing so. In I Don't Believe in Atheists Hedges claims that Harris was promoting using nuclear weapons against Muslims in his book The End of Faith. I would have thought Hedges just misunderstood the passage that he so blatantly took out of context but Harris himself on numerous occasions explained to him that he was in fact not advocating any such thing. If anyone takes the time to read the entire passage it becomes clear that Harris is actually pointing out the futility and self-defeating nature of  militant responses.

The truth is that when it comes to intellectual debate it is the theists who tend to resort to physical threats not the atheists. So there is no misunderstanding, I am in no way implying that the majority of theists are violent. They are not. In heated exchanges between the more ardent proponents of the God debate it tends to be the theists that encourage and condone violence to advance their beliefs. "Militant Atheist" is a slanderous term used to denigrate atheists. "Militant Christian" can be properly used since I can think of a large number of individuals who have advocated violence. A large percentage of the religious right fit the label quite nicely.
If any theists object to this I'd be happy to create a list of Christian individuals and groups who are on record supporting violence and I would at the same time challenge them to provide a list of their own on atheists that do so.

The Arts are also rife with Anti-atheist bigotry

A recent example of the blind prejudice and ignorance in the arts can be found in Quentin Letts recent review, "Hallelujah! Miracles Do Happen." In praising the play The Faith Machine he notes that, "the Royal Court's latest play is a breakthrough in the religion v atheism battle." Yet, he never provides any breakthrough. Lett's seem to think the play is unique since, "It does not serve up the sort of pro-Darwin propaganda pumped out by the BBC."  If he means pro-evolution he should say so. Using Darwin just shows from the start how ignorant he is. This, of course, makes me wonder if he'd prefer pro-creationist/fairy tale propaganda.

Letts also seems to intentionally ignore some rather major details of the play in order to push his claim that it is unique. He doesn't seem to notice, for instance, that the major character who is the least likable with the most questionable personal ethics and morals happens to be the atheist. The character who is not only the most likable but the moral center of the play is the religious girlfriend of the atheist. This is Letts "breakthrough." It sounds like standard anti-atheist bullshit to me. The moral/ethical dilemmas that drive the plot all seem to be fairly standard both in their presentation and theatrical usage. A slightly more revealing and accurate review can be found at The Guardian.

It is interesting to note that both the play and reviews are from England which is generally viewed as being more open to atheism