Originally a comment by SC (Salty Current) on When a group is an acceptable target for hostility.
The suggestion that atheists privileged on other dimensions don’t face anything that could be recognized as oppression as atheists is wrong and unhelpful. Probably the element of anti-atheist prejudice that should be most concerning is the suggestion that atheists aren’t fully human* – that we lack some spiritual quality or knowledge or essence that limits us intellectually or ethically or even makes us dangerous. It should be easy enough to see the similarities with misogynistic and anti-Semitic ideas.
One problem, though, is that the insight that the treatment of atheists shares important features with that of other groups has been extremely difficult to impress upon some white male atheists who continue to spew and actively or tacitly support sexist, misogynistic, racist, transphobic rhetoric. Dawkins, for example, can deride journalists who say atheists aren’t fully human or archbishops claiming that reason is dangerous and leads to genocide; he seems to have more difficulty imagining growing up and living as an atheist in societies completely organized around such views or seeing the similarities with patriarchal or colonial ideologies.
They contest the misrepresentations of atheists by religious people and religious apologists – the portrayal of calm criticism as shrill ranting, the claims that we seek to oppress religious people and silence dissent, the mint julep tall tales,… But they can’t seem to recognize the same patterns of misrepresentation when they’re used against feminists. They resent the condescending suggestions from faitheists that our “strident” tone and refusal to abide by rules of civility that perpetuate the religious status quo are unethical and alienating allies, but they’ll turn around and demand that feminists adopt a compliant, “civil” attitude even in the face of vicious abuse.
They call attention to the various aspects of religious privilege that exist even in more secular societies, but then adopt a pose of utter stupidity when the concept of privilege is raised in any other context. They argue that we don’t want to be accepted as “as good” as religious people – that we don’t just want a place at the faith table, but are fundamentally challenging the assumptions about the moral and societal value of faith. But they don’t see the connection to those of us who are saying that we seek something beyond legal equality (though we want that, too) and challenging the culture of white male supremacy.
Appreciating that the treatment of atheists shares important features with other oppressions should lead in one direction: toward recognition of the need for solidarity with the victims of those other oppressions. Sadly, the reason it hasn’t in some cases appears to be that they view the treatment of atheists as illegitimate and the treatment of these other groups as legitimate. But perhaps pointing to the similarities across the beliefs and narratives and practices might prove enlightening.
* “Fully human” is speciesist dreck in general and urgently needs to go.
** The differences aren’t negligible, of course, and the societies most oppressive of atheists are far worse to women.
Well said, and an excellent point! Thanks for the different perspective.
… the societies most oppressive of atheists are far worse to women.
Teeny quibble: in all such societies that I know of, a person can admit to being a woman without facing arrest/execution (except in aggravating circumstances, such as driving a car or talking to a non-family man).
Part of the problem is that atheists are often very successful and acceptable in certain places and professions. In descending order (the closer to the top of the list, the better):
The physical sciences.
Philosophy and the social sciences.
The humanities, either as academic or practicing artist or writer.
Settings with a more educated and/or liberal public.
Cities in general.
Suburbs in general.
Small towns in general.
People see some high profile atheists who are successful or even dominant in certain fields and figure that atheists are a small population of smart “nerds” who have found comfortable places for themselves, so there’s no problem or (in the case of extreme right-wingers) that there are very few atheists, but they’ve illegitimately pushed religious people out of influential fields.
The problem is that there are millions of people who are atheists and unbelievers/non-religious of various descriptions.and we can’t all be scientists or live in a few ultra-liberal areas. Even with very little active persecution, there is a pervasive attitude that we’re dangerous and unacceptable so there is serious pressure to either be closeted or be seen as “one of the good ones.”
This isn’t as big a deal in environments where religion is seen as more of a private matter, but can be very intimidating in subcultures where talking about religious beliefs and activities are often discussed among casual acquaintances.
It’s often argued by the other side that showing some sort of token acknowledgement to the dominant religion shouldn’t be so hard (prayers at public events, swearing on the Bible, etc.). But these same people would be unlikely to accept having to make official statements implying atheism or even bow their heads in honor of a god they do not recognize.
There is also the issue of being demoralized by the pervasive connection of atheism with lack of morals, hopelessness or general weirdness. These stereotypes are in everything from popular TV shows to mainstream political speeches. Would they be acceptable if aimed at Jewish people, for example? And the whole “you have a choice” argument is BS because no one can make themselves believe something they find unconvincing.
Thanks, Ophelia.
***
…dressing “improperly,” controlling your reproduction, speaking in public, not obeying your husband or male relatives,…
When “aggravating circumstances” include most attempts to live your life as a human being,…
There is also the issue of being demoralized by the pervasive connection of atheism with lack of morals, hopelessness or general weirdness. These stereotypes are in everything from popular TV shows to mainstream political speeches. Would they be acceptable if aimed at Jewish people, for example?
Jews are an interesting case as you can lose your faith and still remain Jewish. I’ve seen very few attacks by faithists on Jonathan Miller, for instance, despite the series he did on the history of atheism. Maybe the faithists suspect he’s not entirely done with Judaism. Hostility seems directed more towards atheists with a nominally Christian background.
Come to think of it, Dave Allan was very popular. Maybe its the fact some atheists are seen as ‘lacking ethnicity’; an English atheist being seen as ‘rootless’ for rejecting the C of E while Jewish and Irish atheists still retaining cultural roots.
Pierce- there is a HUGE issue with your comparison- you NEVER have to SAY you are an atheist! You can go along with the flow of life, even enjoy the privileges of religion if you want too. You may CHOOSE to risk your life coming out as an atheist, but speaking up is still a choice.
Women have no such ability to live oppression free. Our mere existence marks us out as lesser than men, and forces us to be in submission to them. There is NO way to avoid the oppression of patriarchy.
People have silly cartoonish ideas about how terrible atheists are, and people have silly cartoonish ideas about how terrible feminists are. The parallels you both pointed out are clear to me.
I don’t understand how people who don’t believe in Bigfoot believe in some kind of hairy and improbable woman, possessed by the (mis-represented) demon spirit of Andrea Dworkin, and presumably carrying Carrie Nation’s axe and “just looking” for a reason to get offended by the man on the street. When was the last DOCUMENTED sighting? I mean, really.
Women have no such ability to live oppression free. Our mere existence marks us out as lesser than men, and forces us to be in submission to them. There is NO way to avoid the oppression of patriarchy
Your argument seems to be that atheists aren’t oppressed since they have the option not to tell anyone they are atheists.
That’s not being ‘oppression free’, that’s being complicit in your own oppression.
Nobody is obliged to reveal their gender online but you wouldn’t advocate that as an option for making the internet sexism-free.
Shatterface @9 to staceyjw @7:
I don’t think so; it refers to the relative degree of difficulty of blending in; for example, as a lad I was a Catholic altar-boy while personally an atheist. Not that onerous, really.
(And, of course, there are the exceptions that prove the rule)
John: “(And, of course, there are the exceptions that prove the rule)”
.
I don’t want to be difficult, but how does an exception, to a generalisation or ‘rule’: that is, a case where the generalisation does not apply, prove the generalisation?
.
If say, Newton’s law of gravitation applied universally, except on the first Thursday of each month, and that exception only applying in Pawnee, Oklahoma, how would that ‘prove’ the law of gravitation?
.
😉
“Prove” or “proof” in this case refers to testing – it’s a bit archaic; you usually only hear it in terms of the aforementioned maxim and in “the proof of the pudding is in the eating.” About the only place you still hear it in its original form is in the term “proving ground.”
“Probably the element of anti-atheist prejudice that should be most concerning is the suggestion that atheists aren’t fully human.”
.
Right on the money. To be seen as believing is essential if one is to be seen as belonging. What you believe does not matter so much, as long as it is what everyone else believes in the community of whatever. A push for mental uniformity, on whatever basis, seems to be important across families, clans, tribes and other levels of human organisation and identity. Just as say, periodically making a characteristic sequence of sounds, as in birds’ calls, or displaying particular markings, as in reef fish, identifies an individual as a member of a species, so publicly joining in collective ritual (eg kneeling at prayers in a mosque; wearing a crucifix) identifies one as an insider, and to be highly valued, as distinct from the outsiders, who if not to be totally shunned, are at least seen as being less valuable.
.
As ideas can be contagious, particularly if they are persuasive, those who carry ideas incompatible with group thought are often seen as somewhat akin to lepers; to be kept apart from the uncontaminated tribe.
.
In various historical situations, such tribal attitudes can be dangerous. That in my view is why the most important political contest of all is for the primacy of liberalism.
forestdragon @#12: Interesting point. So it becomes ‘the exception that disproves the rule.’
The exception IMHO does a bloody sight more than just ‘test’ the rule.
[OT]
Omar Puhleez @11, I was being playful.
Literally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule
[meta]
Just a note that SC (who is smarter than me) was noting the salient fact:
(I guess there’s nothing to dispute there)
*“Fully human” is speciesist dreck in general and urgently needs to go.*
.
Agreed. But ideology is particularly hard to escape from. Even the anti-ideologue is an ideologue.
.
Before speciation can occur, a reproductively isolated population must be established. These can exist in enclosures like oceanic islands, mountain valleys and religious communities. But the isolation is just as commonly ended before there has been enough time for the new species to become a reality.
I’m not sure what you’re on about.
In a recent comment on the “why are feminists divisive?!” thread, I noted several books in the feminist-social justice-animal liberation tradition relevant to this question. I’ve discussed the “fully human” idea specifically in several places, including here and here.
The racist, sexist, and anti-atheist narratives all have their roots in speciesism.
I think that’s a very insightful and enlightening analogy with respect to “equity vs. gender” feminism.
Curious that the analogy to LGBT discrimination – “coming out atheist”, etc. – seems to be very easy for most to grasp, and in my experience solidarity with LGBT activists seems to be almost universally endorsed within the atheist community. It’s hard not to draw the conclusion that LGBT rights are not seen as privilege-threatening, while the same is not true of feminism.
SC: “I’m not sure what you’re on about.”
.
I find it difficult to imagine how anyone can be human, and at the same time ‘not fully human.’ Perhaps human physically, but not human mentally? But if any human group is going to head in the direction of becoming something other than ‘fully human’, it is likely going to mimic speciation, and that way move towards becoming something other than ‘human’; that is, a new species. This I suppose could be achieved, given enough time. Reproductively isolated ethnic, cultural and religious groups, whether they realise it or not, are taking the first steps down this (admittedly rather long) path.
.
“The racist, sexist, and anti-atheist narratives all have their roots in speciesism.”
.
I assume that a ‘speciesist’ is someone who believes members of their own species should be given, or some way deserve, a better deal (however defined) than that given members of any other species. I think that the term was originally carried over from ‘sexism’ and ‘sex discrimination’ by Peter Singer. (He as far as I know was the first to use it.)
.
While I have no time for intensive livestock practices, I cannot see where the OK/not OK line can be logically drawn on the ‘species’ issue. A working arbitrary line within the Kingdom Animalia could be put in at vertebrates/invertebrates, even though that has nasty problems. But I also incline to extend your statement further: “The racist, sexist, anti-atheist and ‘speciesist’ narratives (however defined) all appear to me to have their lateral and surface roots in optimal.foraging, and deeper down, their tap roots arguably plug into the Second Law of Thermodynamics.”
.
Further detail supplied on request.
@Omar Puhleez
Are you being deliberately dense or are you one of the many people who don’t understand figurative speech?
While your definitions of “human” are correct in a literal sense, they are insufficient for the term in popular usage. There are a lot of non-biological attributes that we (some of us, at least) regard as necessary to be “human” (again, in the popular sense.) Surely you’ve heard of a serial killer referred to as “inhuman” or “a monster”?
While some of these attributes are common and useful, such as not killing and torturing people, others, like faith are less useful. Deciding that one group or another, whether LGBT, women, ethnic minorities, poor people, or atheists, is less deserving of equal treatment is deciding that they are less than “human”. The assumption being that all “humans” deserve equal treatment.
They can’t, any more than someone can be a man and yet not a “real man,” which is the point. It’s ideology. In speciesist thinking – which characterizes religion and philosophy in our culture and the culture more generally, and has surrounded us since birth – “human” is understood to designate not merely biological species but a position in a hierarchy, one that’s fundamentally separate and distinguishable from others.
When talking about other animals, all humans can be considered above and distinct from them. But also among humans, based on this hierarchical categorization, people can be classified as more or less human, higher or lower on the scale that goes from the Animal to God (or beings with “godlike” qualities).* As I suggested here:
Women, black people, “savages,” “primitives,” “insane” people, Jewish people,…, and, yes, atheists, have variably been considered and treated as lesser or “subhumans.” Not just (categories of) people but behaviors are classified along this spectrum: “beastly,” “regressive,” “animalistic,” “savage” vs. “higher,” “humane,” etc. This is what I mean when I say that the other oppressive ideologies are rooted in speciesism.
The ideologies, of course, are connected to material systems of oppression and exploitation which have come to victimize both nonhuman animals and categories of humans. The ideologies and systems are described in depth in the books I mentioned earlier: Women and Animals, The Sexual Politics of Meat, Beyond Animal Rights, Woman and Nature, Brutal, Critical Theory and Animal Liberation, Animal Oppression and Human Violence. (The first and last and Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust are probably most relevant here.)
* Nonreligious speciesism has to do away with the explicit cosmic hierarchy, but can still retain a number of its basic features implicitly, and can adapt the understanding of evolution to speciesist purposes: seeing human evolution teleologically, as progress away from animality and toward “higher” forms; suggesting evolutionary “turning points” that set us on a path completely distinct from other animals (which generally replicate the Genesis myth in some form); and so on. In this way, secular speciesists can retain the hierarchy and the idea of distinct moral categories. But only, as James Rachels makes clear, by distorting evolution.
ArtK @#21:
And a merry Christmas to you, too. Also, good luck for the rest of your web cruise.
.
“Are you being deliberately dense or are you one of the many people who don’t understand figurative speech?”
.
Either way, I think I am being depicted there as less than human (ie not like you). Your response is not only hypocritical, but also appears to me as arrogant and condescending. It stands in rather stark contrast just above the courteous, detailed and informative response given me by SC @#22. I suggest you take a leaf out of Salty’s book.
.
Pending an apology and appropriate expression of remorse from you, this conversation is now terminated.