.png){kind=logo}
December 3, 2011 at 2:31 pm 
Greta Christina 
In the last few years atheists have become seriously organized, mobilized, visible, vocal and unapologetic about their atheism.
If there are just two things you take away from this story, they should be:
1. Anti-atheist bigotry and discrimination, of a completely overt, very ugly kind, is real.
2. Atheists are no longer putting up with it. If you fuck with them, they will fuck with you right back. And they know how to do it.
Two recent events in the news illustrate this bigotry vividly. In the first, a billboard company in Ohio rejected an atheist billboard campaign — at the last minute, the week before the billboards were scheduled to go up, after weeks of extensive discussion and planning with no hint of trouble — because the atheist content was deemed “obscene, unnecessarily offensive and/or not in the best interests of the community at large.”
In the second story, a local merchant near an atheist conference put a sign on his shop door, explicitly saying that conference attendees were not welcome in his Christian business. And he got a faceful of Internet fury for his trouble.
Thus begins my latest piece for AlterNet, 2 Shocking Attacks on Atheism — And How Atheists Fought Back. To read more about these recent incidents of anti-atheist bigotry — and the atheist community pushing back fast and furious against it — read the rest of the piece. Enjoy!
Oh, and BTW: If you’re mad about the Ohio billboard company rejecting the atheist advertising because the content was atheist? Here’s their contact info. It’s the LIND Media Company: you can call them at 800/444-LIND; call LIND vice-president Maura Siegenthaler at 419/571-4286 [cell]; email Siegenthaler at mss@lindoutdoor.com; fax LIND at 419-522-1323; or write them at 409-411 North Main Street, Mansfield, OH 44902.
Posted in 
Oh dear. I can only imagine the comment threads on this one.
One of the things that’s really been brought to my attention recently is the way religion twists the concept of forgiveness. Christianity, in particular, promotes it as something that should simply be given out for free, and as an intrinsic rather than contingent moral good (the “turn the other cheek” nonsense). And thus you get even relatively secular people advising you to “be the bigger person” and “let things go,” implying that when somebody wrongs you or a third party, that it’s more moral to let them get away with it.
Which, of course, is going to lead to a whole lot of pearl-clutching and finger-wagging over the entire concept of there being blowback for anti-atheist discrimination.
I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on this.
What about Gingrich’s definition of an illegal immigrant who deserves to remain undeported as church-going?
“If you’ve been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you’ve been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don’t think we’re going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out.”
We’re a lot like the Wu Tang Clan. Sounds good.
I find it interesting that in the US there are actual laws against this kind of thing that have been in place for centuries and that have served your nation well but that religious people are determined to ignore.
In the UK we are presently dealing with this kind of thing, it has been illegal in your country for two hundred years and is theoretically illegal in Europe.
http://freethinker.co.uk/2011/12/03/council-prayers-challenged/
“like a wildfire on meth” = AWESOME
I sent a politely worded snotgram to LIND a couple of weeks ago when the story initially broke.
I just sent an email to the LIND company to express my disappointment. Greta, I think your blogging and activism may be starting to rub off.
Tony
#3: You’re aware that most members of the Wu-Tang Clan are 5% Nation of Islam, right? It’s right in the lyrics of nearly every song.
I’m aware you’re trying to reference that atheists “ain’t nuthin’ to fuck wit”, but that’s just laughable.
I sent an email to this LIND person earlier. I strongly doubt I will get a response, but if I do, I will share it. I tried to make it interesting.
Thank you, thank you, for making this so public. I heard about Gelatogate from PZ right after it happened (and sent the owner an email chastizing him), but BillboardGate was a new one for me.
Just to interject a note of paranoia, do you think Lind let them keep making plans while knowing it wasn’t going to go forward with the billboards just to mess with the group? Make it impossible for them to find another company to do business with? See, all this discrimination is driving me to paranoid behavior!
Spammers and blogwhores are sooooo annoying.
Thanks, “Widemouth” asshole; now I’m unsubscribing to avoid more spam bullshit like yours. The way this site handles subscriptions is annoying as shit anyway.
@Widemouth:
Who gives a shit whether Dawkins thinks that Jesus was a historical figure or not? He’s neither a historian, archeologist or a bible scholar. Why is his opinion relevant?
Another post of yours tries to make an appeal to popularity, pointing out that many people believe that Jesus existed. Again, who give a shit? The vast majority of these people believe so not because they are educated on the subject, but because they were taught to believe it as children, usually by people who were equally ignorant.
More to the point, the question itself is irrelevant. Whether there was a historical basis for the myths or not doesn’t matter. It says nothing whatsoever about whether the bible is true or whether there’s a god.
In conclusion, not only are you blog whoring, your blog doesn’t even contain relevant information.
I would love to have seen the gelato guys’ face when he walked in on The Brother Sam Revival. I can just see him running for his eternal life down the street back to his shop. Then frantically putting together a sign and hosing down the sidewalk with Holey Water for some extra protection.
Can I get a God Damn!
I read through a few of the comments on Alternet…it was painful. There were a number of comments once again trying to tell us how to run our movement, mostly of the type “your methods are only going to entrench the other side.” It just further shows why it’s necessary for us to fight back.
Haven’t any of you ever gotten angry and done something impulsive???
There is no evidence that what happened with the Gelato owner was any more than that. Why are people still saying things that have since been falsified?
Being a Skeptic is more than just doubting god. As Eliezer said to me after his talk, disbelieving in god is the “easy part”, the hard part is continuing with rationality.
Being skeptical is admitting we ALL have inherent biases about a lot of different things, especially when we feel our identity attacked. By all accounts, that is the best explanation for the way the Gelato owner behaved; and it is also the best explanation of why some atheists can’t understand this.
Fortunately, the Gelato owner has since figured it out. I spoke to him the Friday following the conference and it was clear. He has learned a lot. He even had a skeptic over for Thanksgiving. Too bad many bloggers here have yet to get to this point. They see an all too familiar pattern and want to extrapolate its interpretation to every situation they can.
But if you play the victim card when it is not applicable, you’ll end up just looking foolish. I, for one, don’t think that is a good idea.
People act on the information available to them. I suspect most people here have not personally spoken to the owner. If this was simply a case of a hasty over-reaction and if he has since learned better, that’s great. Good for him and, indeed, for all of us.
However, since the people here may not have been aware of that, it is not at all unreasonable to assume a more bigoted motivation, especially considering the social climate in America.
I might, a bit tongue-in-cheek, ask why you are so quick to assume that the people here were motivated by petty victim-playing, rather than simply a lack of information.
Isn’t ignorance of the owner’s change of heart a better explanation than malice?
Personally, all I’d heard about it was that he had issued an apology after serious pressure, both by atheists and chain of which his store is a part. Such an apology is not necessarily an expression of true contrition.
Finally, at least point 2 of Greta’s post still stands. Atheists aren’t taking any shit anymore. We fight back. If this causes people to reevaluate their opinions, as you say has happened in this case, then that’s wonderful.
Presumably, this is exactly what we’re going for, right?
Heh. My argument on the gelato guy issue was out of step with teh HiveMind™ but I still think it has merit. It got rather swamped in the Pharyngula thread and I didn’t want to be mixed up with faitheist forgivers, so I gave up there. I’ll try again, and see what a smaller venue does.
My position is that ideally we should accept his apology, but that we are under no obligation to forgive him. The reasons for this are:
1. Accepting an apology is a formal claiming of victory. We graciously accept his concession that he was in the wrong, and that his position has been defeated. It’s nice to have a win, let’s appreciate it! This also signals that we will not be pursuing further legal or punitive action; the specific matter is considered settled in our favour.
2A. Forgiveness by third parties is a very Christian idea. A priest or a god forgives you your sins. Never mind the actual people you hurt, they’re irrelevant.
I can’t forgive someone for wronging someone else. Only the actually wronged party is in a position to forgive. How wronged you were is variable. Were you there? Did you want an icecream? Or are you in a foreign country and impersonally somewhat angry about how your fellow-atheists are treated? And how much do you care about GG himself? Some may empathise that once they, too, were bigoted Christian dummies but they got better. Others may be angrier. It’s far too individual to have a unified position on.
2B. Another part of Christian forgiveness, which I don’t think can be carried over into a secular context, is the wiping of the slate. Confess and Jebus’ blood will wash you white as snow! (How *does* that work??)
I think that’s rubbish. If someone has done something wrong, you may well forgive them – but unless it’s a trivial matter, it’s ridiculously dumb to forget it or pretend it didn’t happen. Once can be a goof, but the more recurrence, the worse it gets. In secular justice contexts, your sentence for an offense depends on your record. The record isn’t wiped every time you pay your speeding fines; do it often enough and you lose your license.
Taylor #16
Your concern is noted.
My problem with Gelato Guy is his use of Christian privilege. He saw Bro. Sam being rude towards his religion and his reaction was to close his place of business to skeptics. How dare someone not give Christianity the respect Gelato Guy thinks it deserves!
According to what I’ve read, shortly after the sign went up Gelato Guy reconsidered, possibly reflecting on the point that his discrimination against atheists was illegal, and the sign went down. I’ve read all three of his apologies and nowhere does he recognize his unthinking acceptance of Christian privilege. He’s hurt that atheists are upset at him but he doesn’t appear to realize why some of us are upset.
The sign on the business door said “Skepticon is NOT welcomed to my Christian business.”
It appears the shopowner was responding to a particular group of people who ridiculed both his faith and the people he shared that faith with. Even Ed Brayton insists that Christians should have been offended by Skepticon.
Does this same restaurant have any prior history of showing hostility towards atheists? Has ANYBODY here EVER seen a sign at ANY American public business that said, “Atheists are not welcomed . . . “?
You guys should give yourselves a little credit for creating your own identity. You’ve worked hard for this. But don’t try to tie the rest of the atheist community into this story. Anybody with common sense understands the true nature of this event and you’ll find many freethinkers who refuse to live out this lie with you.
Also, I doubt seriously that the “Skepticon Sign Story” will carry ANY historical weight with the next generation the way that JT thinks it will.
Who the fuck is Ed Brayton and why should I give the tiniest bit of shit what he thinks?
I say the talk in question and I’m not convinced that anyone with a sense of humor should find it offensive.
That is, I *saw the talk
Oh, LykeX inspires me to add point 2C.
Christian forgiveness requires “an humble and contrite heart” of the offender. Accepting a secular apology does not. OK, an admission of wrong-doing is not always sufficient – if it’s sufficiently notpologyish enough to be an added insult, that’s bad. But demanding a change of heart, and a conversion to the light? Naah. Not so much a requirement for the secular.
I say that GG’s apology was sufficient because he acknowledges his wrong-doing and stopped doing it. He may have added some face-saving “but but I was angry, they dissed my faith!” guff, but I’m OK with that. Allowing your opponents to save face is good tactics.
@LykeX
Ed Brayton — Dispatches from the Culture Wars
Good night.
Did he let them use his bathroom, too?
Azkyroth, what is your aim? Making bigots back down, or having them experience a road to Damascus conversion?
And a royal ‘I’m super more totally awesome than you’ back at ya, buddy.*
*I don’t actually mean buddy. Even though I’m inclined to agree with your assessment of the gelato business I’m much more inclined to dislike you and this ‘rest of the atheist community’ after this condescending comment. Have a nice day!**
**I don’t actually mean have a nice day. I’m trying to mirror the smug way you’re excusing yourself from this conversation. God Bless!***
***should be self-explanatory.
Isn’t this point sorta moot given that he has apologized for the sign and has, at least implicitly, said he was targeting atheists/skeptics with it?
I can see the point being made pre-apology but now that we pretty much know he was trying to bar skeptics from his business because they were irreverent (and arguably insulting) towards his beliefs it rings kinda hallow. Had he gone on to defend it saying he had nothing against atheists or nonbelievers but that the content of Skepticon was so offensive to his faith that he did not wish to associate with that event then it would be a different story.
Isolating the content of the sign from the context of what happened afterwards seems like selective memory. We’re ignoring the full scope of evidence in debating whether Gelato Guy’s actions were inappropriate.
Ok, third comment in a row. Apologies to Ms. Christina for essentially spamming her blog.
This seems like a lousy standard for recognizing discriminatory practices in the US and worldwide. Such blatant bigotry is largely confined to small pocket areas dotting this country but that doesn’t mean that’s the only place bigoted attitudes can be found.
Suppose that in order to demonstrate a company had sexist hiring policies you had to produce an exchange between employers saying ‘We do not want women working in this business because we view them as inferior to men.’ Can you imagine how impossible such a burden of proof would be to meet?
I don’t mind strict standards for evidence but I object to unreasonable standards. Not only does it fly in mockery of what should be meant by skepticism it handicaps anyone trying to put a stop to discrimination and push back against bigoted views (especially the subconscious kind).
Anyway that’s all kinda off topic anyway
Yes.
Umm, thanks, but that wasn’t really the point. If I had really wanted to know who he was, there’s this handy little thing called Google. It’s quite useful for such things.
The point was that it doesn’t matter who he is. Namedropping will get you nowhere. I don’t care what Ed or anybody else insists on. I care what they can provide good arguments for.
Azkyroth, I think that the key thing to do with bigots is to make them stop acting on their bigotry. Make it socially unacceptable to express bigotry. Actual conversions are a *hard* problem. It’s more commonly a matter of generations dying out.
And also, seriously, you really want road to Damascus experiences? Scales falling from the eyes? At best that’s a tainted metaphor, wouldn’t you say? And sudden blinding flashes of divine inspiration are not what I’d pick as a good model for rational changes of opinions. I did assume that, as an atheist, you’d know your bible
A bit stolen from Austin Cline’s site About.Atheism, just in case anyone has forgotten the privilege that it is to be Christian in the USA these days.
.
Now for some fun, try replacing the word Christian with Atheist, in the above sentences and see if the sentence makes any sense.
Even more fun? Replacing the word “Christian” with just about any other privileged group. Many of them still work.
Thanks, though. That really puts this into perspective. Atheists and Christians (well, Christians and anything that isn’t Christian) are by no means on equal footing.
The interesting thing about the claim that the Gelato guy administered a “shocking attack on atheism” is that even though its misleading, its not exactly false, either.
“Shocking” is a point of view, and if you were shocked by it–then I guess it was shocking. It qualifies as an “attack” (far more retalitory than discriminatory, but you can look at either side of the coin you like). And the attack was aimed “against” a portion of the atheistic community; thus it was against “atheism.”
Choose how you want to look at it; what happened is what happened. But you would think that a group of people who values their relationship with reality would want to see that reality in the clearest light possible. One can get lost wandering around in the dark.
I hate to ramble on–but I don’t think I was slamming Christina’s blog, @julian.
My guess is, she probably understands what I’m getting at (even if she doesn’t agree). She’s possibly even thankful that I’m trying to help add clarity.
To say that a statement is misleading is not to say that the person who made it was lying.
Take it easy.
At any rate, thanks for ALL of the feedback. I can’t say you weren’t willing to talk (though I wish you were more willing to think).
Mike @33:
-Wow. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that Christians probably enjoy more “hidden” privileges.
And I can’t say I regret reading this comment except it has nothing to do with anything (though I wish you had said it to me in person). God Bless!*
*again, self-explanatory
Seriously though, the smugness with which rapiddominance and others like hir approach these issues will keep me as one of the ‘wrong’ atheists for some years to come. Thank you, for that at least, rapiddominance. I do occasionally need to be reminded why I avoid the ‘right’ kinds of atheists.
rapiddominance
Okay, so if Gelato guy had said “No gay pride marchers…” in his sign we could all assume he wasn’t really attacking gay people, he just objected to the march? Or how about say, if it was a convention of rabbis that mocked anti-Semitic preachers, would that be acceptable?
I mean seriously, is there any civil rights context you would actually apply this line of reasoning to other than an atheist convention? Think about it seriously.
What that asshole was doing was enforcing his religious norms on people who do not share his religion. He was essentially saying “If you are an atheist comedian you are only allowed in my shop if you don’t cross these lines. If you do cross those lines I will ban every person who attended your show.”
And what you are doing is minimising, which is simply gutless. Yes it was an attack on atheism as a whole because it was a bid to make an example of Skepticon for atheism as a whole.
Sure his power to do so was limited to his business, but that his means were limited does not limit his intent.
And as Julian puts it, there is a very good reason that as a whole, nobody likes the right kind of atheist just like nobody likes the right kind of anything. The right kind of people are the worst people in the world.
I’m going to step in here for a moment, and remind everyone: This is not Pharyngula. I expect a basic level of courtesy and civility in the comment discussions here. I am fine with vigorous debate and dissent, but please dial back on the heated personal rhetoric. Thanks.
I am more interested in the billboard story than the gelato story. We ‘fought back’ against the gelato man in an appropriate way, and the result seems satisfactory.
But the billboard company needs to be sued. What has been done along those lines? Must we rely on the ACLU?
For heaven’s sake, by generous definition we atheists are the second largest religious denomination in the country, and we don’t even have a legal arm. We have 4000 local organizations and no legal department!
If we are truly serious about this movement, it is time to stop sitting on our hands, get prepared, and start throwing our considerable weight around.
I don’t quite get why a billboard that says “It’s all about him and he’s all about you” with a picture of Jesus (actually it appeared to be a picture of a jedi knight) is given as an example of something offensive. I can see that it might be disrespectful toward non-Christians but we all know that they delude themselves that their religion has global and universal significance.
“There is no God, don’t believe everything you hear.” with the missing question mark just exibits such a wonderful lack of awareness and it is so funny that an atheist group wanted to recycle it for their own use. In the UK there is a religious group are giving out free calendas with nice pictures on, each one featuring a random Bible quote. January features a picture of a snowman bearing the legend “I am the Lord, I do not change”.
I just sent an email to LIND Media Company expressing my disappointment with their decision, and referred them to many similar billboards that have gone up without difficulty and have not been contested.
Thanks for posting about this.