Frivology

For the record, I’m on the fence as to whether or not Atheists should be loud-mouths.  I can both see the benefits of being rather vocally out in the public sector and the drawbacks.  I literally sway back and forth.  I tend to, personally, sway more toward the being loud part, no matter what the message is – but that’s because I don’t believe that the religious should have a monopoly on free speech.

No matter what, though, I have a real problem with people who describe themselves as religious essentially telling Atheists to STFU.  Mark Fefer of Seattle Weekly has done just that.  I actually caught up with him on his follow-up, but I think his first article is worth quoting.

I happen to be a religious person myself. But to have any reverend stand before the country and start directly addressing— on our behalf—a kindergarten version of God (old male, up there, controlling everything) as our government leaders bow their heads just seems wrong on its face. We all elected this president, and it’s not a religious office.

The trouble is that the only people speaking up loudly for separation of church and state are people who hate the church part.

via: Not Praying Along With Obama

Kind of a harsh introduction to what he thinks about atheists, don’t you think?  I certainly do. 

The atheist lobby and its standard-bearers, like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, attack all religion as dangerous and delusional. But religion is no different from sports, music, or any other part of our culture. It can be a life-enriching experience that promotes community feeling and social values. It can also lead to destructive extremes. Should we Imagine No Sports because of steroids, concussions, and Pioneer Square knife fights?

Because isolated violent events over sports are the same thing as the conflict in the Middle East, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the constant attack on women’s rights and so on and so forth.  When a sports star uses steroids, they don’t hurt anyone but themselves, but when religion goes awry, it hurts many more people, some of which are completely innocent children who don’t even understand religion.  It isn’t the same, and they shouldn’t be compared to one another.

What’s more, the attacks by Dawkins and Hitchens are actually relatively tame compared to the attacks by the religious on the irreligious.  Why should they get a free pass, but atheists should be thrown under the bus (no pun intended)?  I don’t buy, either, the argument that atheists should be kinder and gentler than the religious.  When Christians feel like their fragile little “rights” are being stepped on, they’re very loud and vocal about it, but we are supposed to sit down and shut up? 

…what I find odd is the apparent belief ("faith," you might even call it) that eliminating religion would cure these problems. Where is the era or culture with no wars, pseudo-science, bigotry, or dangerous heads of state? Where’s the evidence that abandoning religion ends hate and brutality—Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge? Soviet Russia doesn’t seem to have been such a great time, either. I can "imagine no religion"—as that billboard on Denny Way suggested last summer—and it doesn’t necessarily translate to peace, love, and understanding.

Why aren’t the partisans of atheism bothering to tote up all the ways religion helps provide a more caring society? Why can’t Dr. King be Exhibit A instead of George Bush?

via: The Atheists, Obama, and Me: Part Deux

Right, let’s trot out the communist governments as proof that atheism is bad.  Looking at the first paragraph of this clip, I can hardly understand why the second paragraph is even being asked.  Why do you have to bring up forced atheism (which isn’t what the sign on Denny Way suggests in any way, shape or form), then immediately follow that up whining that atheists only look at the negative aspects of religion.  Seriously?

Ironically, the anti-religionists are just too obsessed with God. They think that if they can just harangue everyone into realizing how stupid it is to believe in God, we’ll all embrace…well, whatever it is we’re supposed to embrace instead.

Each other, maybe?

But God/NoGod isn’t the only point of interest for religious people. Religion offers rituals for marking time and deepening our experience of life. It gives us a vocabulary for our aspirations. It provides connection to our ancestors and the ways they too mourned, celebrated, and struggled to make sense of the world. There are plenty of religiously involved people who do not believe in the historical reality of supernatural events and deities. But they find the tradition meaningful, a useful vehicle for passing on values and advancing social progress.

These are the people whom atheistic activists should be making common cause with. Creationist homophobes are a good whipping boy, but the atheists’ fight against ignorance will be strengthened by people who love knowledge, progress, and religion.

I’m not sure what Fefer is really trying to say with this.  It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me but, again, he hasn’t made a lot of sense thus far.  You don’t need religion to have “rituals for marking time”.  These rituals existed before religion and will extend past it.  You don’t need it to have a connection to your ancestors, and it pays much more homage to your ancestors that you grow and change and … progress.  Nothing says progressive like actual progression, after all.  Religion isn’t necessary, either, to give us a vocabulary for our aspirations, and that’s the big point Fefer seems to be missing about the aggressiveness of the current atheist movement.

The point Hitchens, Dawkins and others are trying to make is that we don’t need religion to get all of these great things.  Life, humanity and the people around us are great without it.  None of us, I think, would mind it terribly if people chose to be religious to do these things.  What we mind is when people tell us that because we don’t believe in their special little club, we don’t deserve to have a voice.  Or, worse, that we deserve to be tortured for eternity. 

It’s true, not all religious people are bad… but, not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer, either.  Still want to take up smoking?

Related posts:

1. 9/11 Made Richard Dawkins Bold My my, that Atheist bus campaign sure is stirring up...
2. How to be a Militant Atheist Apparently, it’s easier than I thought to be a militant...
3. Atheists Will Win if They Shut Up Dan J tossed this in my comments since it sounds...
4. A Rambling Bit of Something? More from across the pond.  Madeleine Bunting of The Guardian...
5. Hemant’s Questions on New Atheists Part of the original purpose of this blog was for...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.