Coming Out Atheist Is Not the Same Thing As Coming Out LGBT

[rug]

Posted: 06/07/2012 5:50 pm
Ronald A. Lindsay.
President and CEO, Center for Inquiry

- snip -

There's a big difference between being gay and being an atheist. Someone can persuade you to be an atheist; no one is going to persuade you to be gay (no matter what the extremist anti-gay propaganda says).

I don't foresee a best-selling book entitled "The Straight Delusion" or "Heterosexuality Poisons Everything." The LGBT community wants acceptance; they don't want to persuade others to join their "team," and even if they had that objective, they would strive for it in vain.

By contrast, the amount of literature that has been produced in the last decade criticizing religious belief is extensive and continues to grow. Moreover, these critiques of religion seem to have had some effect.

Of course, many atheists have little or no interest in persuading the religious to abandon their beliefs. They merely want to be treated as equals and to end the influence that religion has on public policy. That doesn't matter. The realization that many atheists once were religious and then "lost" their faith has an unnerving effect on some of the religious. How far will atheism spread? Will I be next? Or my children?

- snip -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronald-a-lindsay/coming-our-atheist-is-not-the-same-as-coming-out-gay_b_1577843.html

[SwissTony]

1. Has anyone suggested that it is? nt.

[rug]

2. He must have imagined the need to say it.

[2ndAmForComputers]

3. Excellent article.

The money quote, with the money phrase in emphasis:

On the other hand, not only are atheists different, but explicitly or implicitly, they are telling the faithful that they're mistaken about a core commitment (for some the core commitment) of their lives. As the number of open atheists increases -- and this seems likely -- we can expect some religious to become more defensive, more strident in promoting their beliefs. They will regard themselves as under attack.

[cbayer]

4. That's the big difference - GLBT people don't feel the need to tell

straight people that they are wrong, delusional, thick headed, naive or suckers.

Some atheists, for whatever reason, do feel the need to do this.

My experience has been that those that feel the greatest need to convince you that they are right and you are wrong are those with the least confidence in their position. Those that feel that they must assert their intellectual superiority are those that most seriously doubt that they are in fact superior.

It's narcissism and true for all kinds of fundamentalism, imo.

[OriginalGeek]

8. Cbayer, I have always known you to try to be fair and thoughtful and considerate

both in your beliefs and in your dealings with those of us who lack them. In no way do I want or mean this to hurt you. But the fact is, as pointed out elsewhere in the thread, even those of us who don't feel the need to explicitly say believers are wrong, delusional and thick headed, our very existence implies it.

I'm sorry it has to be that way but I simply do not believe and I can't understand how or why other people do.

That doesn't mean I can't love believers - My mom was a believer and so are my aunts and uncles and grandparents and most everyone else in my life.

That doesn't mean I don't want to work with believers for goals we have in common - for me that includes full equality for everyone and other democratic principles. (That is not what my mom was working for though - she was one of _those_ believers).

That doesn't even mean I think believers are wrong, delusional, thick-headed and naive about everything. But my lack of belief must by its nature stand opposed to believer's belief. I reject everything supernatural from any and all religious texts but believers hold on to some part of all of them - some more than others and nearly everyone with different interpretations but no matter how much or little you believe or John Hagee believes or Mother Theresa believed or Gandhi believed, it's all bullshit to me.

This is the part of the article I took to heart:

Nothing in the foregoing should be interpreted as suggesting we atheists should keep our beliefs under wraps to calm the fears of the religious. To the contrary, I firmly advocate the "coming out" of atheists and other freethinkers. Not only is it something we atheists should do to maintain our integrity, but, on the whole, it will be beneficial in reducing the level of prejudice against atheists. However, the path to acceptance may be a bit longer and rougher than it has been for our LGBT friends.

I think I may be becoming more cynical than I wish to be though because my first thought was that the way Rug presented this thread was designed to cause strife between the gay community and the atheist community. It seemed like someone was accusing atheists of suggesting that our choice in beliefs can compare to being gay when I have never known a single atheist who espoused that position.

I openly apologize to you, Rug, if that was not your intent - I can't help the way it made me feel. But I can help how I deal with that feeling going forward.

[cbayer]

9. I see your point and appreciate your taking the time to say it.

I do disagree, however, that non-believers very existence implies anything other than disagreement on an issue that neither side can prove right or wrong.

It is the anti-theists I object to. The ones who feel the need to belittle and ridicule. Those that have taken it upon themselves to work towards the elimination of all religion and religious people. Those who can see no common ground on which believers and non-believers can work together towards a shared goal.

I might even posit that those I describe are the least sure about their position and the most challenged by those who do have religious beliefs (as you so articulately describe the opposing situation).

Can't speak to Rug's intentions here, but he and I both post articles which we think are interesting or might stimulate conversation, whether we agree with them or not. Knowing what I know about rug, I would find it hard to believe that he was trying to stir up trouble between atheists and the glbt community. At any rate, there is some significant overlap on this site and most people from all groups seem to get along fine.

I may have been out of line and, if so, I apologize. I am surrounded by atheists, many of whom are the people most dear to me. I have also met and learned from many more here, including you.

[OriginalGeek]

10. Oh no I don't think you were out of line

it's no fun to be bashed upon no matter where it comes from and like you said in another thread on a different subject, this stuff is deeply and intensely personal and folks on both sides need to accept that other folks are gonna take things personally. I know I sometimes do but I usually get over it (well, except for one guy who called me a liar and has yet to apologize for it in the A&A group but that has nothing to do with this. I'm sure I'll forget all about it eventually).

I know Rug often posts articles and excerpts from them with little or no comment initially and it often stirs up lively discussion so perhaps I do need to check my cynicism and maybe not assign intentions to him that aren't there.

BUT (ya know there's always a but lol) I think in many ways I am an anti-theist atheist. I've said many times here on DU that I want to see the end of religion but I don't want it at the point of a gun. If I were king I wouldn't abolish it and I don't think I'd vote for anyone who would try that. I simply want religion to die a slow death as more people come to the conclusion that it isn't necessary.

I also understand that nothing like that will happen in my or my great great great whatever's lifetimes and beyond. So in the meantime I will do my part to explain what I am and work with anyone who shares the same goals as me and be glad for the help and company.


That doesn't mean I won't laugh at the awfully blasphemous stuff posted in A&A though. Just tryna be honest.

[cbayer]

11. Even if there were a king who could technically abolish religion, they would be unsuccessful.

Prohibition just doesn't work when the prohibited item is something people really want (or even need).

You feel free to laugh all you want, OG. While I sometimes object to some of the more *blasphemous* posts made here, I do so because it appears the attempt is to hurt others. But I'll be honest, too - sometimes they are pretty funny.

It's really nice to have this conversation with you.

[dimbear]

12. My first thought was William F Buckley, who must have been quite the quivering mass of jelly

in private, but then I remembered the one guy who is always right: the Pope.

[cbayer]

13. Narcissism is an interesting thing.

The harder the shell, the more need to protect what is inside.

I can't speak to the true nature of either Buckley or the Pope, but it would not surprise me if they were both terribly insecure and vulnerable when it comes down to it.

Anyway, that's just my armchair take on it. It seems particularly clear when you look at some of these grossly homophobic religious leaders whose personal lives sometimes come into the spotlight. The more one has to hide, the harder one has to try to hide it.

[daaron]

5. Didn't realize anyone thought it was the same.

So THAT'S what the Hufflepuff Post is good for: telling those who don't know any better that which everyone else already knows.

[rug]

6. Why do you think the President of the Center for Inquiry thought it necessary to write this?

[daaron]

7. Probably for political fence-sitters on social issues.

Blue dogs and Hufflepuff Post readers, who like a nice dose of fluff with their everything, and maybe don't like to think as deeply about what they read as DU readers like us.