American Atheists is doing it again: they’re attending CPAC. I’m at a loss — this is simply incoherent, and sends the message that the atheism movement is so broad it is meaningless, it can encompass any philosophy, including explicitly anti-humanist ones. So why bother?
And weirder still, look who they’re sending.
On Thursday, American Atheists announced that board member Jamila Bey will be speaking on the main stage at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), after the atheist civil-rights nonprofit was banned from tabling at the 2014 conference. American Atheists will also co-host an exhibitor table at this year’s event.
“Our message is simple: Conservative atheists matter,” said American Atheists President David Silverman. “We’re returning to CPAC to make it clear that conservative does not equal Christian. The core principles many conservatives value—fiscal responsibility, individual freedoms, small government, low taxes, a free market—have nothing to do with the issues crusaded for by the religious right. Conservative lawmakers push away millions of atheist voters who want a responsible, small government and a free market, but can’t and won’t support religiously motivated laws that make our government bigger and more personally invasive.”
Bey, who is a journalist from the D.C. area, is scheduled to speak on Thursday, February 26 at 11:00 AM. Her speech will be the first by a known atheist speaking about atheist issues in CPAC history. Similarly, American Atheists’ booth presence will be the first organized presence of an atheist group promoting atheist awareness at the conference.
(Schedule updated: she’ll be speaking at 11:17 this morning.)
Jamila Bey, who has a blog right here on SJW Central? Jamila, the pro-choice black atheist woman who works for the Voice of Russia? I’m finding it hard to imagine anyone less suited to the politics of CPAC.
The only explanation I can come up with is that Dave Silverman is trolling CPAC, and trolling ’em hard. He’s not going to win over any of the reactionaries there, but it’ll put American Atheists in the news again.
Just watched Jamila speak. Did I hear her say something like “we’re part of a growing conservative family”?
If so (and I could well have mis-heard), then I have to say, “what’s this ‘we’ shit?”
Courting these creeps makes no sense whatsoever to me, the only thing you’ll do is peel off some of the worst of the conservative crowd, the Rand-droids.
so the only “conservative atheist” that comes to mind is Karl Rove. And he doesn’t appear to give a rats ass about humanism, given his background in the Bush administration.
Wasn’t it Silverman that Billo was talking to when he made the famous “Tide comes in, tide goes out” comment?
Fiscal conservatism = “I’ve got mine, screw the rest of you.”
So no, Jamila, conservative atheists don’t matter to me, except as a roadblock to what America should be.
>“Our message is simple: Conservative atheists matter,” said American Atheists President David Silverman. “We’re returning to CPAC to make it clear that conservative does not equal Christian. The core principles many conservatives value—fiscal responsibility, individual freedoms, small government, low taxes, a free market—have nothing to do with the issues crusaded for by the religious right. Conservative lawmakers push away millions of atheist voters who want a responsible, small government and a free market, but can’t and won’t support religiously motivated laws that make our government bigger and more personally invasive.”
The “conservatives” at CPAC don’t actually stand for any of those things. Trickle-down and austerity aren’t fiscally responsible, opposing net neutrality and LGBT rights isn’t supporting individual freedoms, the only parts of government they want to be smaller are the parts that help anyone that isn’t the same color and religion as them, and the “free market” they advocate is a market where the already massively wealthy are free to squeeze everyone else for every nickel and dime they can with no regard for the well-being of their customers, workers, or environment.
Sure, maybe Silverman is just doing this to get AA in the news again, but frankly getting in the news by being associated with CPAC in any way is not the kind of attention any atheist organization should want. They’re nothing but vile bigots and economic cranks. Anyone on the progressive side that sees them wooing CPAC is going to see them as capitalism fetishists willing to sacrifice their humanist values to make strange bedfellows with conservative hacks, and anyone on the regressive side that sees them wooing CPAC is going to see them as filthy others trying to undermine the party (like the way they treated GOProud). There’s absolutely nothing to gain here at all.
Blockquote fail. My reddit is showing.
Pretty sure your last paragraph is spot on.
I know a couple of conservatives who are true to their values. They give very generously to charity, practice responsible citizenship and they hate what the republican party has become. Some have sat on the board of Planned Parenthood and are staunchly pro-choice (small govt, doncha know). I do think that these kinds of people could appreciate being openly non-religious and could be a force for change within the conservative circles. Mostly however, they’ve given up, frustrated by a party that won’t stop hating on women and not-straight folks.
It was a bit of a surprise to me last year when Silverman dog-whistled that he supports the shredding of the safety net, supports increased gun violence, and welcomes those who did not agree that women deserve reproductive rights. Now I know what kind of guy he is, and better understand the goals of American Atheists. I find their values repugnant, and will have nothing to do with American Atheists.
“…sends the message that the atheism movement is so broad it is meaningless…”
I would have thought that became clear some time ago, and is a major reason why I lost interest. My lack of belief is personal, and I don’t like people/groups/movements trying to tell me what should or must (or should not or must not) go along with that.
I’ll associate with people, join groups, support movements based on a number of things, but lack of belief is a weak basis for any of that.
It needs to be clearly repeated: CPAC is not just any conservative gathering, it is a gathering in which (conservative) LGBT organisations are strictly denied access, and which gives a platform to white supremacists organisations. AA and any decent person should stay well away from this.
Whoever says “conservatives want small government” is either a liar or an idiot. I don’t know which is worse.
By now I hardly give a rat’s ass about atheism anymore. I’d rather have less conservatives than conservative atheists.
This is the kind of people Silverman is pandering to
Wait, I’m confused, I thought they didn’t allow GOProud or Log Cabin Republicans at CPAC? They let American Atheists in???
Yea, I’m sorry, I don’t like the look of American Atheists alongside Islamophobes, raving misogynists, blatant racists, hateful warmongers, and christofascists. I don’t think he’s trolling. Either way, it’s a terrible association for American Atheists.
And frankly, the main reason to be anti-religion is because religious institutions always side with conservativism. The more liberal religious institutions are not nearly as much of an issue. At least new-agers people don’t want to legislate women’s bodily autonomy away. Hell, Millenials are more atheistic, but they’re also way more liberal than the general population.
I have no idea why you want to associate American Atheists with CPAC in any way. Gross.
Conservatives want a government big enough to stomp on powerless people but not big enough to act as a check on corporate power. The “freedoms” that they champion are almost exclusively the ones that involve people hurting other people. And their claims to fiscal responsibility are pretty well dismissed by all the economic meltdowns of the past forty years. Conservatives are just robber baron capitalists, as anti-humanist as you can get.
And I don’t know why you think Silverman is trolling them, I think he fits in pretty well there.
The start of my journey away from being an arrogant libertarian, towards being a less-arrogant (mostly) socialist, was when I realized the libertarians I interacted with online were actively seeking to make common cause with theocrats. Not in a wink-and-a-nudge way, but with arguments that the far right theocrats were natural libertarian allies.
It struck me as either profoundly naive or deeply cynical, and I couldn’t foresee a future where the extreme religious right didn’t co-opt any supposed libertarian/conservative alliance. Which was then amply borne out by the rise and fall of the Tea Party.
Theocrats don’t make alliances except those of convenience, and they’re always itching to betray their allies in the name of their actual Dominionist goals.
While it may not be a logical contradiction, conservative movement atheism is certainly a pragmatic one. There is clear evidence that the kind of highly unequal, no-safety-net society conservatives want is strongly correlated with high levels of religiosity. See also here. The religious right know what they’re doing: strengthening the welfare state and decreasing inequality would undermine religion faster than anything else, as it has in western Europe.
It just occurred to me that Silverman might be more of a Koch Brothers-esque atheist conservative (although without all the money and power).
@3
Quite right, and I wanted to hurl a heavy object at my TV when Silverman let him get away with it. There’s a reason he’s the official atheist guest of Fox News. He’s easy to shout down.
Trebuchet @#3:
Actually, I have the clip of the Colbert Report where they mock that, and Colbert points out that this was not a unique occurrence – they show several clips where O’Reilly says that, or very similar words (often with “Never a miscommunication” afterwards). There are dates on them:
• Jan 4, 2011 (w/ Silverman)
• May 9, 2007 (I don’t recognize who he’s talking to)
• Jan 5, 2011 (graphic next to him says “Religious Reasoning”; he seems to just be pontificating)
• July 6, 2007 (Richard Dawkins interview — also has “Sun go up, sun go down”.)
If Silverman thinks he can split the conservative coalition of libertarians and theocrats with this stunt (year after year) will it result in votes?
If it results in conservative legislative votes for secularism, but keeps putting Republicans in office, then so what? Silverman can say he was responsible for a Secular yet Racist government. No thanks.
Alternately is he thinking he’s going to get actual conservative voters to stop voting Republican? Seems delusional, but perhaps the goal is splitting the conservative vote to the Libertarian Party (under the impression that disempowering theocrats will result in more secular legislation).
But I also asked why bother, conservatives are overwhelmingly Just World believing authoritarians — just the sort to not give a shit about atheism or secularism. https://twitter.com/dorolfe/status/570974957053857792
Actually, the Dawkins interview one is misdated — it was April 23, 2007, as noted on old Sb Pharyngula.
Also confirmed by O’Reilly’s Wikiquote page, which has another use of “tides”, on Oct 13, 2010 (talking about Stephen Hawking)
Silverman says “conservative atheists matter” but he’s on record saying he won’t focus on diversity even while acknowledging it’s necessary to grow his overwhelmingly white movement.
Not to say that “David Silverman doesn’t care about black people,” just that his focus is entirely on secularism. (White people can afford to only focus on secularism. Cuz I got mine!)
No posting about this on Jamilla Bey’s FtB page so far.
She’s got some ‘splaining to do, enough to challenge even her considerable talents.
Well, RawStory picked it up.
I don’t get it. Could somebody explain the punchline to me?
Their bullshit has nothing to do with “religious right” bullshit? How is anyone supposed to tell if that’s true, or is this just more bullshit?
And the bullshitting lawmakers (who don’t make laws) push away the bullshitters who don’t want exactly the same flavor of bullshit that the “religious right” wants? Even if they do, who the fuck cares?
Yep, conservative philosophy is to divide everyone into “us” and “them” where the “us” gets all the protections of the law and government but not bound by them while “them” are bound by the law and government but receive none of the protections. Their current foray into “religious liberty” to discriminate against LGBTQ is evidence.
There seems to exist a “conservative family” and Jamila Bey claims to be a part of it.
OK
I don’t really know much about her.
*blink*
I have to agree with PZ: Silverman is trolling CPAC hard.
On an unrelated note: Jamila Bey used to work for Radio Russia? There goes any respect I might have had for her.
*Voice of Russia
There are plenty of conservative atheists; conservatism is about sustaining privilege, and you don’t need a religion to do that, you can just be a bad person who enjoys hurting people.
Wow, how unimaginably racist do these people have to be to be this close to sane and still self-identify as “conservative”? I also know a few border cases like this — the one that comes to mind is the complement of this. He’s basically sane, not racist at all, and genuinely considers women to be subhuman on every level. People are funny.
I think someone who used to work for Voice of Russia is a perfect fit for CPAC, given the collective genital swelling that goes on in conservatives’ pants whenever Putin is compared to Obama.
@Nick Gotts #18
Yes. And conservative and right-libertarian atheists will continue ignoring the inconvenient fact that the economic policies they support all but ensure continued high religiosity in the U.S.
But the big organizations don’t want to alienate any potential Big Donors. Conservatives? Sure, welcome ’em with open arms. They’ll be thrilled to know their tax exempt donations will go to yet another event featuring Dawkins, Harris, and/or Shermer.
I will agree in as far as they are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons.
Stuff like this is why I think it’s important to support more specific causes than just general non-belief (Humanism, for example)
I hope that this is just a publicity stunt, but I doubt it.
I see people who love this country and who believe in the equality of all people
If we could establish just who she was seeing at that time – clearly not the CPAC audience – maybe JB’s demonstration of clairvoyance can win her the Randi Prize.
Modern conservatism is a fundamentally faith based ideology, regardless of whether or not particular aspects of conservative ideology are traditionally religious. Conservative economic policy is entirely faith based and pure in it’s rejection of empiricism. Conservative social and foreign policy are likewise fundamentally in opposition to rational thought. The “small government” mantra of conservatism is, to the extent that it goes beyond “I’ve got mine; fuck you,” entirely religious in nature, based on a religious faith impervious to reason that holds that government always makes things worse.
What’s the point of an atheist organization openly endorsing faith based “reasoning?” Once you embrace religious faith you lose the ability to argue that a person is wrong to believe in a god or gods.
“Trolling CPAC”
FFS really? PZ, I have to say between this and Dawkins, how often are you going to let people basically make you look foolish before you stop giving them the benefit of the doubt?
Hi, Ing.
How’s things?
Why? It’s really not that hard to understand.
Because the organization is American Atheists.
Not American Humanists.
Not American Atheists-Plus.
Not American Progressive Atheists or American Democratic Atheists or American Social Justice Atheists.
If it makes you feel better, call them American Dictionary Atheists,
OK? Because that’s what they’re about. Issues of dictionary atheism: church/state, secular schools, like that.
If you don;t care for that focus? Don’t join them, don’t fund them. Find another organization that represents your personal ideology better. And rock on.
But to criticize them for doing exactly what they do, instead of doing what you think a right-thinking organization should do instead?
That’s basically narcissism.
Right. I was angry last year when I thought that Silverman had misrepresented himself in order to get my membership. He presented, for one, as a feminist. Later it was revealed that he personally was one of the enforcers of Dawkins’ blacklisting of Rebecca Watson. When it was revealed at last year’s CPAC that Silverman supported increased income inequality, increased gun violence, and welcomed those who oppose women’s reproductive rights, I felt further misled. But now, the secret is out. I’m grateful that I was only a member of AA for one year. A bad use of my disposable income, but again, I was misled. Silverman’s done the math and if he can get one Koch brother, that will replace every good person who leaves AA several million times over.
And yet here you are, criticising.
Nope: there are no issues of dictionary atheism, because according to dictionary atheists, atheism is just the lack of belief in gods, nothing more. It does not follow from such a belief that you favour the separation of church and state, or secular schools, or science, or the non-persecution of atheists.
*chuckle*
Ing@39,
I have to agree.
3937@43.ChasCPeterson, #39
If you don’t care for the view that AA is wrong for being at CPAC? Don’t read the posts, don’t reply to them. Find another blog that represents your personal ideology better.
And rock on.
Considering there’s only one Republican party and a vote for that is always also a vote for the religious right, it’s hard to see this as more than some sort of statement of principle. Yes, conservatism doesn’t automatically imply the social conservatism and religious extremism, but in practice that’s what you’d vote for… so… yay for making that statement, I guess.
@ 12, Giliell,
Actually, being a liar is much worse. Being an idiot means you have an intellectual disability. Please stop using ableist slurs.
I have such a difficult time understanding why so many here keep using idiot and stupid to refer to repugnant people. Please let me know if you’d like me to to further explain why mocking one’s intellectual ability is not cool.
Chas,
You are absolutely right.
I really don’t see why PZ criticizes Answers in Genesis either. They do right what the label says. They are not called Answers in Evolution or Answers Are Not To Be Found In (A) Supreme Being(s).
So, you know, rock on PZ. But please knock off your narcissistic expectations that every organization does what you think they should.
Also, PZ, don’t you criticize gaming industry for being sexist. They’re not equal rights and farts and rainbows and games industry, just games. So if they want women in their games to wear nipple armour, that’s none of your business.
Does everyone have to be some kind of feminist do-no-wrong goody?! Jeez. Keep your feminist agenda to yourself for once.
Same goes for any other business as well, of course. People have businesses to run, money to make, they can’t worry about all these issues you make a big deal out of.
…America, the land where “small govt” is considered a conservative value instead of a liberal one.
Just to drive the point home (in case Chas comes back, or For The Lurkers): it’s not self-contradictory to think that there’s no god but that non-closeted atheism is somehow bad for society and therefore a religion should be institutionalized.
Oh.
Personally, I wouldn’t consider someone with a disability “stupid”. I tend to use that word for failures to perform intellectual feats the person in question is capable of. I think so does PZ.
“Idiot” is an old word the meaning of which has shifted from “particular person” or somesuch to “private citizen [of Classical Athens] who doesn’t care about politics”, then to “stupid person”. For a short time it was used as a medical term for people with a certain range of IQ; that has long been abandoned, and “stupid person” is the only meaning anyone who uses that word has in mind nowadays, as far as I can tell. Apparently, that’s how PZ uses it, with “stupid” defined as above.
True for an individual, but we are not talking about an individual. We are talking about a nonprofit advocacy organization which advocates for American Atheists.
See the difference?
As for the rest, I’ll take Ludicrously False Equivalences for $500, Alex.
edit to second sentence:
We are talking about a nonprofit advocacy organization which advocates for all American Atheists.
ChasCPeterson, #39
Right, and one of the ways we can know not to fund them or join them is through posts like this, which point out that they are acting against our values and interests.
And hey, maybe they would like our support, in which case the criticism is potentially useful to them, too.
No, we’re really not; such an organization would not send a representative to arselick CPAC bigots and corporate shills.
I hear there are atheists in Ku Klux Klan. Hey, an atheist is an atheist and every atheist counts. Would make nice headlines too.
No. Please explain.
@53 Chas
By pandering to a group that is discriminating against LGBTQ people, women and POC. So inclusive, so neutral….so fucking representative…
What we’re really talking about is an organization which advocates for more money in their pockets, ethics be goddamned.