A few thoughts on the modern secular movement

[citizen blues]

I don't post here very often, but feel in light of recent postings, that I would like to say something about the modern secular movement.

I'm not a Christian, I fully support science, and I even used to be active in the secular movement - until I got fed up with the rampant disdain and contempt. It was a frustration of mine the entire time I was in the secular movement. The longer I stayed, the more I realized that modern "atheists" aren't really atheists at all. They're actually anti-theists. When you start becoming so vehemently anti-religion that you can't even have a civilized conversation with someone who follows a faith, you're crossing a line that can't be uncrossed, ringing a bell that can't be unrung.

Like I said, I'm not Christian. I'm Pagan and I have been treated by fundamentalist Christians like I'm evil incarnate and less than a human being. Likewise, because I have a faith, I have also been treated by atheists like I'm the cause of all of society's evils and less than a human being. What's the difference? Being on the receiving end, there's none whatsoever.

As I mentioned, I was active in the secular movement because I support science, science education and environmentalism. I support free public education and absolutely the separation of church and state! The latter two are in the U.S. constitution and part of what U.S. was founded on. The reason I left was because I got tired of having to hide who I am. The bottom line is that atheists lost an ally and I can tell you that I'm far from the first, nor will I be the last.

There are a lot of us out here who believe those same principles, who would be glad to stand shoulder to shoulder with atheists and fight to maintain the separation of church and state. And a lot of us who would are Christian, Jewish, Pagan, Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, among others. Yet, when we're met not just with contempt, but with open hostility from atheists, do you really think we're going to stick around?

While you may win one court battle over here, or a skirmish with a school district other there, ultimately you're losing the war because you've isolated yourselves to such an extent that you've turned off those who would be your friends and allies. No one group is truly going to win this; it's going to take all of us standing together. Perhaps atheists need to remember that the separation of church and state isn't just for atheists, but for everyone of all faiths and no faith. So how about treating the rest of us with the same consideration that you're asking to be treated with. Otherwise, you most certainly have rung a bell that cannot be unrung.

[Cartoonist]

1. So far, it's one way.

It's the religious right that is pushing theocracy. Name an instance where an atheist proposed a law that would violate the seperation of church and state.

[rug]

2. He's not talking about the religious right at all.

[Cartoonist]

4. He's talking about Church and State

No one group is truly going to win this; it's going to take all of us standing together. Perhaps atheists need to remember that the separation of church and state isn't just for atheists, but for everyone of all faiths and no faith.
-

He wants both sides to get together and fight for the seperation of Church and State but he feels unhappy with atheists. I understand his complaint, but the ones he should fear are the believers, not atheists.

[rug]

5. When a group is continuously disrupted, the only ones who gain are their opponents.

For example, you go from "religious right" in one post to "the ones he should fear are the believers" in this.

[Cartoonist]

6. Your point?

The religious right goes nowhere without the consent and support of believers. While I acknowledge that there are some believers who also support the seperation of Church and State, his rant is 99% against atheists, who are not the problem in that struggle.

[rug]

7. Then go out and fight them.

Do you think you're actually accomplishing anything by attacking people who believe in a God? All this does is create drag and dead weight. You're far from the only one. Hence, the post.

[Cartoonist]

8. Time for citizen blues to respond

I know where you're coming from. No longer interested in talking with you.

[hrmjustin]

9. Interesting way to end a conversation.

[rug]

12. Thank God.

[citizen blues]

10. Oh, My Dear Confused Cartoonist,

I do not want all sides to get together. I want everyone who supports the separation of church and state to stand together against those who want to ignore that part of our constitution, i.e. the religious right. Others who support the separation of church and state include moderate to liberal Christians, Pagans, Jews, Hindus, and, yes, atheists. We will get much further by working together than each group on their own. The fundamentalist Christian right wants to see us apart because it's much easier to attack one at a time rather than defend against a coalition.

I don't fear atheists; I'm just incredibly annoyed with them because of their narrow-mindedness. Furthermore, when you say that I should fear believers, you're saying I should fear myself. I am a believer. My beliefs fall under the very broad umbrella of Paganism. So, no, you clearly do not understand my complaint.

Although, I do want to thank you for responding to my post. You have provided a beautiful example of the knee-jerk reaction that I have seen time and time again from atheists whenever someone suggests that they should include others who support their cause of a secular society regardless of the presence or absence of beliefs. I would just like to ask atheists to please start practicing the reason they promote. Too many are so irrational when it comes to religion that they are unable to distinguish one group from another. The end result is that everyone outside the secular circle gets painted with the same broad brush of "BELIEVER."

The point of my post is to ask the atheists to stop retreating into their delusion of intellectual superiority, roll up their sleeves, come out and work with the rest of us who want to hold the line against those who would undermine our constitution.

[Cartoonist]

34. That's what I thought you said

I want everyone who supports the separation of church and state to stand together against those who want to ignore that part of our constitution, i.e. the religious right.
-
And that's what I said in my initial post. Blame rug for taking it elsewhere. I didn't want to talk to him, I was responding to your post. Here's something else you said:

I have been treated by fundamentalist Christians like I'm evil incarnate and less than a human being.
-
Yeah, but the atheists are the bad guys because . . .

[cbayer]

14. Which is exactly why believers and non-believers need to work together to combat them.

I fear you missed the entire point of this OP.

[Maedhros]

3. I see what you've seen, Citizen Blues.

I understand the source of the disdain and contempt, and can sympathize with those feelings, but I find the expression of them unhelpful.

Not every person of faith is deserving of the contempt that is heaped upon them by a vocal minority that feels it necessary to find and punish believers for their faith.

[mmonk]

11. We're a secular nation by Constitution.

There is a religious movement so to speak.

[YoungDemCA]

44. So religious people can't be involved in politics?

I'm confused as to what your point is.

[mmonk]

47. My point is secular government is not a movement.

[cbayer]

13. It needs to be said and thank you for saying it so clearly.

I think it's really important to make a clear distinction between the vast majority of atheists and the small group that you describe. There is a great article posted today by atheistrev about coalition building. While there are some that will reject what he has to say, I think there are many more who are interested in successful advocacy.

The openly hostile and contemptuous anti theists are loud and sometimes seem like a larger group than what they really are. They love to sow division and discontent. They absolutely despise those that would call for unity and those non-believers that support believers, sometimes to the point of overt obsession.

Working together can best be accomplished by marginalizing them and being clear that we are all in this together and won't allow them to disrupt the coalitions we are trying to build.

This was a brave move on your part and I suspect you will draw some heat, but I am glad that you had the fortitude to say it.

[citizen blues]

15. When I posted this . . .

I fully expected to take some heat and I probably would have if it had been allowed to stay in the General Discussion and not be relegated to the much smaller Religion section.

I appealed when my post was locked pointing out that this and this had both been posted in the General Discussion. It was then explained to me that these were allowed to remain as a "Big news exceptions" because the attacks in Paris were motivated by religion. However, these exception posts were 10 days after "The Big News" and neither have any mention of the events in Paris. Of course, 5 days after that, the exception was over and my post was locked. It would have been nice to know there was a deadline. It's only fair that they publicize the time limit on "Big News Exceptions."

Yeah, I expected to take heat. I didn't expect to be silenced. Seriously considering leaving DU at this point.

[cbayer]

16. I wasn't aware that you had posted this in GD first.

The hosts have to make some difficult decisions at time and the lines aren't always that clear.

I honestly don't think they silenced you and I generally support keeping this kind of discussion in the Religion group.

It's well done and I think it may get more attention here than you anticipated.

Glad to see you here and hope you will join in. There are those in this group that are trying to build coalitions against common enemies and those that want to stay focused on our differences and not our commonalities. There are lots of great atheists and other nonbelievers here and lots of great believers. Stick around.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. I don't know what 'this' and 'this' were, since both link to your own post

There will inevitably be some form of 'deadline', when the hosts judge that they can't justify a religious post that had nothing at all to do with the Paris attacks staying in GD. And they'll decide it by what's continuing in the news, so there is no fixed limit. You missed it; someone had to.

Your post is an attack on atheists, rather than something related to the Paris attacks, or to religion in the world. You didn't get 'silenced'; you got told to post it here, where such "I hate the other side" threads are normally put. There's nothing whatsoever to leave DU over.

[cbayer]

24. You are distorting what he is saying.

His attack is on anti-theists not atheists.

I don't think anti-theists are "the other side" but a disruptive, divisive distraction that keeps liberals and progressives from working together to achieve mutual goals.

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. Their attack is on modern atheists, who they say are anti-theists, without qualification

I presume all present-day atheists count as modern atheists.

At no point does the OP attempt to restrict the criticism to any subset of atheists.

[cbayer]

26. I dont' think all present day atheists count as "modern atheists"

at all if you use the definition the OP uses.

He even goes so far as to say that they aren't atheists at all.

He most certainly does restrict his criticism to a sub group and does it right from the beginning.

The distinction is clear, at least to me.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. What is a modern atheist then, if not a present-day atheist?

'Modern' to me means, 'present-day, as opposed to from the past', unless it's a specific 'modern X' phrase with a well-known definition (eg 'modern architecture' doesn't have to mean 'everything currently being built' - it's a style).

[cbayer]

28. You can parse the words as much as you want, but I know who he is talking about.

It is hardly surprising that you and I would disagree on this, but I am very clear on what he is talking about.

He is talking about a subgroup of people that call themselves atheists who are hostile, aggressive, obsessed with those who don't think just like they do and extremely divisive. They often consider theists delusional and are derisive and, frankly, very juvenile.

As he says, they generally don't discriminate between different kinds of believers, tending to lump them all in the same tank of shit.

We can call them whatever suits you, but perhaps you are unaware of them?

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. Why would "hostile, aggressive, obsessed with those who don't think just like they do ...

... and extremely divisive" be called "modern"? It makes no sense at all. They'd have used a word like 'hostile', 'aggressive' and so on, or a synonym for one of them, if that was what they meant. Not a synonym for "current", "new", "recent" etc. If I said "modern Christians", would you think I meant fundamentalists? Liberals? Catholics? Or just Christians from the present?

"tending to lump them all in the same tank of shit" - well, that's exactly what the OP does with atheists, isn't it?

[cbayer]

36. You would have to ask the OP why he chose that word, but

I know exactly what he was referring to and I think he described them adequately.

I do not agree with you about him lumping all atheists together at all. I don't think he could have been clearer that he was talking about a distinct sub group.

What would you prefer to call them? Assholes comes to mind, but I am open to suggestions.

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. If I talked about 'modern Christians', what subgroup of Christians would you think

I was talking about, and why?

If you "know exactly what he was referring to", then why can't you explain the association of 'modern' with the adjectives you wish to apply?

What are the rest of atheists to you? 'Old-fashioned' atheists? 'Conservative' atheists? 'Ancient' atheists? 'Vintage' atheists? 'Retro' atheists? What makes them non-assholes, which you think that 'modern' means 'asshole', when applied to atheists?

[cbayer]

39. If you didn't further define it, I would have no idea who you were talking about, but

if you said this:

modern "christians" aren't really christians at all. They're actually anti-atheists. When you start becoming so vehemently anti-atheist that you can't even have a civilized conversation with someone who is without beliefs, you're crossing a line that can't be uncrossed, ringing a bell that can't be unrung.

I would pretty well understand that you were talking about a subgroup of hateful, bigoted people who despise atheists.

Again, I'm willing to use any word you want to distinguish them from the rest of atheists. I feel pretty sure that most atheists would love the opportunity to distance themselves from this group as well, just as many christians would like to distance themselves from the group I describe above.

One recent article posted here made a distinction I liked. The author talked about atheists in general and atheists with specific beliefs. She used this term to describe the subgroup that has specific anti-religion beliefs.

Another term recently used was firebrand atheist.

Why don't you stop parsing the exact words the OP used and deal with the content. This group exists and this OP is not the only one who wants nothing to do with them.

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. Because the OP said 'modern', which distinguishes in time, not kind

If I say "modern Christians want to ban all contraception and abortion, and believe the universe is 6000 years old", I will get told to stop using a ridiculous broad brush. Hell, I'd leap in myself to say that if someone else said that about 'modern Christians'. If the punctuation was

modern "Christians"

I might also accuse them of a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.

When you say "She used this term", do you mean she used 'modern' too? If so, I'd like to read the article.

The point is that, as currently written, the OP is a general attack on atheists. citizen blues ought to own up to that. All I did was point that out. Dealing with the content is hard, when it looks like a ridiculous brad brush attack. If we can reduce it to "there were some atheists I knew who were awful, and I left the secular movement I was involved in because of it", then we have something to deal with. It's along the lines of "don't behave like these people that none of you have ever met, or read the words of", which is not that helpful, but it's better than "modern atheists are a bunch of poopyheads".

[cbayer]

41. oh, c'mon. He said modern then went on to define what he meant by that

and went further to say they weren't even atheists at all but something completely different. It makes no sense then to then say that he was talking about all atheists. You appear to be looking for a reason to be offended here.

Do you feel he is directing this at you?

Now, if you want to make the argument that he is not describing all atheists, I think you have a good point, because he certainly is not.

The term the other author used was "atheists with specific beliefs", not modern.

Even if the author rewrote it as you put it, there would be fury and accusations that it is an attack on all atheists. It is virtually impossible in this group to draw a distinction without triggering outrage.

FWIW, the "modern atheists" that he is referring to really are a bunch of poopyheads.

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. No, they didn't 'define what he meant by that'

They said what they don't like about them. If you think saying people "aren't really atheists at all" is a definition, then I'd love to see a dictionary written by you:

cat: not really a cat at all
bluebottle: not really a bluebottle at all
English: not really English at all

They talk just about atheists after that, without any qualifications such as "some", "certain":

I'm Pagan and I have been treated by fundamentalist Christians like I'm evil incarnate and less than a human being. Likewise, because I have a faith, I have also been treated by atheists like I'm the cause of all of society's evils and less than a human being. What's the difference? Being on the receiving end, there's none whatsoever.

(one difference: the Christians involved were a subset, described as 'fundamentalist'. No word was used for the atheists)

The bottom line is that atheists lost an ally

would be glad to stand shoulder to shoulder with atheists

we're met not just with contempt, but with open hostility from atheists

Perhaps atheists need to remember that the separation of church and state isn't just for atheists, but for everyone of all faiths and no faith. So how about treating the rest of us with the same consideration that you're asking to be treated with.

That's it. Not a single attempt to distinguish a subset of atheists. So why are you accusing me of distorting what they said when I wrote:

Your post is an attack on atheists

I used exactly the same language they did.

[cbayer]

43. I think it is a good idea that you are directing the question to the OP.

I have given you my interpretation and believe he made the distinction up front. I agree that your excerpts make no distinction.

But I can not defend him further and hope he speaks for himself. I do not think it was a general attack and I agree with his thoughts when applied to a subgroup.

[carolinayellowdog]

30. "Modern" in the OP refers to a movement, not individuals

both in the title and by implication throughout the post, he is referring only to a faction that could not possibly be more than a small minority of atheists-- people who identify themselves with the movement he was formerly affiliated with, and about which he speaks from experience.

It seems as if no one can voice any criticism of even that small and unrepresentative faction without disingenuous reactions of "you're attacking and insulting ALL ATHEISTS." As has been repeatedly stated in these forums by various critics of said movement, that's preposterous. Personally, I've known a great many atheists and never yet actually met one who was a "movement supporter" type, fan of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et al.

Except back in college in the 1970s when the aggressive atheist dogmatist types were all Ayn Rand groupies.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. The title referred to the modern *secular* movement

which contains atheists, agnostics and religious people - citizen blues says they used to belong to the secular movement themselves, and they are Pagan. It is a criticism of atheists in the secular movement.

So, no, I don't see that they are referring to 'a faction', nor that it "could not possibly be more than a small minority of atheists". Through the OP, they just talk about 'atheists'. What are the words that say it's about a faction of atheists?

[carolinayellowdog]

17. We can respect knowledge and experience without accepting belief

It has been an education of late to discover that a neo-pagan type like you or me can be considered one of those "evil believers," indistinguishable from fundamentalists of the Abrahamic faiths and deserving the same disdain. Belief has very little relative weight in my respect for various religionists. But having pursued knowledge of religious history for decades, and tried to understand many varieties of religious experience, I appreciate the experiences and knowledge of those from whom I can learn-- even when their beliefs are uninteresting or repellant.

One interesting example would be the Seventh-day Adventists, who have played a heroic role in church-state separation issues for what are essentially selfish reasons-- fighting blue laws because they don't want to be forced to observe a Sabbath that is not theirs. No matter how we feel about the Adventist beliefs, we can appreciate that their experience of marginalization and knowledge of legal activism has helped us all in this country. Another example, the Mormons-- baptism for the dead might be pointless and based on sectarian belief, but the LDS passion for genealogy has lifted all boats for family history researchers, and the impulse of ancestor-worship strikes me as valid from a neo-pagan POV. There is almost always common ground to be found, if we look for it. The hatred directed at us by the religious right, being categorized as "instruments of the Devil," would seem to be common ground between neo-pagans and atheists in this country. "They are all alike, and they are all to blame" is the quintessence of stereotyping and scapegoating, and Pagans can get it from more than one direction it seems.

[MellowDem]

18. There's nothing wrong with anti-theism....

I think atheists are definitely winning the "war" of ideas about the belief in God, slowly but surely. I think that's important as an anti-theist myself for the expansion of progressive ideas and policies.

I think many religious allies for the separation of church and state of atheists are so privileged that it's tough for them to comprehend anti-theism without being offended.

I think those religious allies are only allies on one issue, on other issues I believe they are tacit supporters of the religious right, and their privilege makes it hard for them to see how.

To give an extreme example, imagine that 80 percent of the U.S. were members of the KKK, but a significant chunk of the KKK members were progressive and didn't believe in racial superiority, but still identified as KKK members. That's how many atheists see progressive members of explicitly bigoted and misogynistic religions. They don't see it, because religion is so privileged. They can be members of a terrible organization for the culture and tradition while not believing a lot of it. Have their cake and eat it too. That's not helpful.

You're a pagan, so it's not quite the same, but I'm talking broadly. Theism is seen as a bad idea by anti-theists, and even more benign forms are still seen as harmful, because many anti-theists think all beliefs without any sort of proof have some level of harm.

Now, your experiences seem extreme. I've never met an anti-theist who treats religious people as "less than human". I have seen people, online, who are rude to people rathwr than attacking the idea, and I think that's wrong, though not ubiquitous, and many of these anti-theists were indoctrinated into a religion, and see the terrible things religion does, so they are justifiably angry.

I see many more religious people get easily offended at having their beliefs criticized and taking it personally, again because of privilege.

I think opposing theism is more important for long term progressive goals and policies than not offending theists that are progressive because they're privileged and easily offended.

There are many theist based separation of church and state groups out there. I'd recommend you join those rather than the fervently anti-theist group you must have been a part of, though again, I've never seen that sort of thing in any secular group I've been a part of.

I think anti-theists should continue to criticize and discredit bad ideas that hurt people. The Pope may believe he is supposed to help people, which is good, but if his reason is that God told him to, that's not good, and needs to be pointed out.

It would be like working with Libertarians on common goals and being told to not criticize Libertarianism as a result. Of course, Libertarianism isn't a privileged belief system, so you don't see people asking for that.

Basically, what you described doesn't seem to describe 99 percent of anti-theists, but does fit the sort of persecuted minority meme being pushed by the religious right of evil atheists being mean. You don't seem to really "get it".

[rug]

19. There's nothing wrong with anti-unicornism eihter.

It's pretty silly to identify yourself in opposition to something that doesn't exists.

The real issue is the involvement of politics and religion which in the end is yet another variation of politics and the political use of ideology.

Which has nothing to do with the existence or nonexistence of a theos.

[MellowDem]

20. Theism exists...

It's the belief in gods, and it has very real terrible implications in our world.

The OP said anti-theists aren't atheists. WTF? It's the same shit I hear from the religious right.

[rug]

21. You've heard the religious right say antitheists are not atheists?

They're more likely to say someone is an atheist just for chewing gum on Sunday.

[MellowDem]

22. They say there's no such thing as atheists...

We know God exists, we just hate him I guess. And it's always a him.

[F4lconF16]

33. He referred to theism, not a theos.

Second, the issue is more fundamental than the involvement of politics and religion. It's also about how we think. It's about how we choose to perceive the world. When people believe things on faith alone, I think, as do most (if not all) anti-theists, that this leads to learning and rationalization processes that are harmful to society (creationism is such a wonderful example, here).

Rationality must win out, or we will continue to have men like Ted Cruz happily run us into extinction.

Also, I would thank you not to define what the real issues are for me--my anti-theism stems specifically from issues to do with religion, and not simply the separation of church and state. If I did not believe that religion is harmful to society at its most basic level, then I would not be an anti-theist.

[rug]

35. There is no theism without a theos.

If you (singular, not the grandiose plural) hold that atheism is simply nonbelief in god(s), you are also bound by the definition of theism, which is simply belief in god(s).

Your second point is as pompous as it is speculative.

As to your last point, I don't even know who you are, let alone care enough to define anything for you. You have an oddly subjective reaction to an objective point. Not very rational at all.

[F4lconF16]

32. Was going to stay out of this thread

But dang, you said everything I was thinking, exactly how I was thinking it. Thank you. Bookmarking this thread for this response, because it's a perfect summation of why and how many people don't understand anti-theism, and take such an immediate offense to it.

[Arugula Latte]

45. Well put, MellowDem.

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. Who are modern atheists?

If I made a remark about modern Pagans, which Pagans would you think it applies to?

[TM99]

49. I know exactly who the 'modern athestis' are.

They are the New Atheists. They act exactly as described in the OP. They are little different in thought and action than the fundamentalist Christian or a follower of Ayn Rand. They are a group now. They have websites, safe havens, claim to not be anything more than someone with no belief in god(s) and yet have a shit ton of beliefs. They have code words, books that all have read, and a definite anti-religion agenda.

They also share in common with other fundamentalist the inability to be self-reflective and often lack even a little bit of awareness of their own defensiveness.

Some have proven this point made in the OP by posting in reply in this thread.

[LeftishBrit]

46. How many atheists are doing this (treating all religious people with open hostility)?

I'd say it's pretty rare.

Most hostility is to those who seek to impose social conservativism into law on the grounds of religion, not to religious believers as such.

[rug]

48. Start here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/123034188

Ten feet from a computer monitor, not so much.