What Is #UpForDebate in the Secular Community?

[rug]

March 26, 2014
By Adam Lee

As I mentioned in an earlier post, David Silverman of American Atheists incited a firestorm when he said at CPAC this year that there was a secular argument against abortion rights. He’s not the only one: Disappointingly, my Patheos colleague Friendly Atheist gave a platform to an anti-choice atheist earlier this month and then declined to post a rebuttal by the group Secular Woman. In response, SW started a hashtag, #UpForDebate, sarcastically asking what else we should consider negotiable among atheists. (Correction: As noted in comments, the #UpForDebate hashtag was started by Elsa Roberts.)

The secular community has always been defined by debate and persuasion, and it’s right that it should be. We wouldn’t have the right to call ourselves freethinkers if we decreed a set of Approved Opinions for all members to adhere to; only religions do that sort of thing. There are legitimate debates to be had: about, say, the moral case for vegetarianism, or the wisdom of gun ownership, or the advisability of human cloning, or the diplomats vs. firebrands question of how to do political activism. And yes, there’s even room for debate about what there should be debate about.

But at the same time, there are some questions that are clearly outside the bounds of legitimate discussion. No one would tolerate a presentation on whether we should have separate, segregated conventions for black and white secularists. No one would countenance a “secular” argument for outlawing same-sex marriage, or ask whether women’s suffrage should be revoked. If anyone in our community advocated anything like this, there’d be a furious outcry, and no one would accept the disingenuous “but I was just playing devil’s advocate” defense.

What determines which is which? There’s a common thread that runs between all the intolerable arguments, and it’s that they disparage or deny the fundamental equality of some group of human beings. In the secular community, it ought to be an uncontroversial moral principle that all people possess the same rights and freedoms. We don’t tolerate exceptions to this rule, nor should we.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2014/03/what-is-upfordebate-in-the-secular-community/

[cbayer]

1. I don't know about this.

He goes from saying that there should be no "set of Approved Opinions for all members to adhere to; only religions do that sort of thing" to saying that everyone has to take an pro-choice position.

While I find the idea that there is a valid anti-abortion argument, as postulated by Mr. Silverman, abhorrent, isn't this author doing exactly what he says shouldn't be done?

[Jim__]

2. The basis for his claim is that all people possess the same rights and freedoms.

Then he states that we all have the right to bodily autonomy:

... In the secular community, it ought to be an uncontroversial moral principle that all people possess the same rights and freedoms. We don’t tolerate exceptions to this rule, nor should we.

And abortion should be recognized as belonging to that same category of fundamental equality. The right to reproductive choice stems from the principle of bodily autonomy, the idea that we own our own bodies and can do with them as we wish. I can’t force you to give a kidney or a lung to me, even if you’re the only compatible donor and I’ll die without one. The idea of coerced organ harvesting from unwilling people shocks the conscience, as it should. Why should a uterus be treated any differently? Why should this otherwise uncontroversial idea be suddenly open to debate when a woman becomes pregnant?

But, his claim that we own our own bodies and can do with them as we wish would also appear to mandate that all drug possession should be legal - an idea that I tend to agree with (tend because I am not an expert on that topic and recognize that there are legitimate arguments against it). Legalizing all drug possession is, at least, a controversial opinion. I believe that it is an opinion that is worth debating.

I don't think he made a compelling case. His concern appears to be granting invalid or fallacious opinions publicity. Outlawing debate on certain topics is at least as dangerous as allowing the people who hold the outlawed opinions publicity.

[cbayer]

3. I again struggle with conflating "secular" with "atheist"

He makes a good secular argument which is embraced by both believers and non-believers. In short, it's the position generally shared by liberal/progressive democrats.

It is certainly not unique to non-believers. In the end his argument is that most anti-choicers are religious, so the non-religious should not be and should not tolerate any deviation from this position.

I agree that "outlawing" debate on certain topics is a very slippery slope and it is what some religious people do.

[eomer]

4. Re: "In the end his argument is...", no I don't think that's it.

In the end his argument is that certain questions are outside the bounds of being debatable, beyond the pale if you will. And based on that he further says he doesn't think secularists ought to debate these things because to do so makes it seem they are debatable.

I believe he wouldn't (and didn't) argue with the premise that some religious people could also find them beyond the pale and if so also ought not debate them, for the same reasons.

[cbayer]

5. But that has nothing to do with atheism.

The comparison to creationism is not a good one. The abortion debate is much more complex and some non-believers have made a "secular" anti-abortion argument.

At any rate, I still think it's a slippery slope.

[eomer]

6. I mostly agree.

The argument that he makes would apply to anyone who thinks a certain question is beyond the pale and ought not be debated lest it seem to be debatable. A religious person could think (and I believe many do) that allowing abortion is beyond the pale. And one of them might give the same advice that it's not a good idea to debate it.

The connection to atheism is that he apparently assumes that if the religious arguments don't apply (because one isn't religious) then the questions aren't debatable and everyone will (or ought to) agree with his position on them. So he appeals to atheists to see it the same way that he does. He doesn't ban anyone, or think he has some way to ban anyone, from saying what they want in the end.

But of course religious people can also think that banning abortions is beyond the pale, for either secular or religious reasons. I don't think he says anything that conflicts with such a fact, he just doesn't put his focus on those people. I'm sure you would want him to because the thing you care most about is people who agree on things like this (across divides of religion) coming together. But that's not his thing and it's his right to not care about it. Cada loco con su tema.

[cbayer]

8. I guess I don't agree with the whole premise that you give something legitimacy by debating

it. If it is truly beyond the pale, it should be very easy to show that and the debate should be short and sweet.

And certainly the issue of abortion is not that cut and dry. We even allow differing opinions on this website.

You are right. I would prefer that he be talking about this in a more inclusive way. His argument really is more appropriately directed towards liberals and progressives and has nothing to do with belief or lack of belief, imo.

In the end he appears to be saying that non-believers should all be identified as liberal/progressive people on some issues and there should be no debate within the atheist community about those things. That's a mistake, imo.

[MellowDem]

7. There are secular arguments for everything...

It doesn't make them good or popular.

It's better to acknowledge and fight against bad secular arguments than to try and pretend atheism or secularism are inherently liberal and no atheist could make a secular conservative argument. Atheists are pretty liberal in the US, it's true, but atheism isn't a belief system. Secular humanism or something like that would make more sense if the author was talking about them.

[cbayer]

9. OMG, MD! I agree with you.

You said pretty much what I've been thinking about this.

[MellowDem]

10. Have a nice weekend cbayer

[cbayer]

11. Thanks, you too, MellowDem.

Getting ready for a big road trip.