Kevin Drum’s rounding up another defense of Amy Sullivan’s indefensible arguments about how the Democrats can just scoop up a bunch of gay-loathing, abortion-opposing evangelical voters that usually vote Republican by being a little more slickly disingenuous with our shows of “respect”. He uses the puritanical American assumptions method of argumentation, an argument that says that taking the more painful, less fun route is automatically the better route, because work isn’t work unless you’re tired and kind of hate yourself at the end of the day. The nothing’s-worth-doing-if-it-feels-good argument.
Democrats aren’t hostile to religion, is the usual rejoinder — often offered right before a series of cavalier references to believers in bearded guys in the sky or the flying spaghetti monster. Nope, no hostility here!
Well, I’m not religious myself, so I don’t really care. But I do care about winning elections, and if liberals can win more of them by toning down the sarcasm and taking the religious community a little more seriously, is that too much to ask?
The grin-and-pretend-to-respect-the-thumpers method is automatically better than mocking them to death because it’s less fun. That can be the only thought process here, because there’s no reason to believe that Democrats are going to start poaching religious conservatives who vote god, gays, and guns just by getting the unruly dirty hippie atheist masses to do a lot of bowing and scraping about how the religious are so much better than us and of course they have to be intolerant because they’re so much better than the rest of us.
What kills me about this line of argument, coming from both Kevin Drum and Amy Sullivan, is that it carries with it the assumption that religious conservatives are stupid, first because it assumes that they don’t vote the issues and second because it assumes the burden is on non-religious people to make nice. I’ll take both of these on, and explain why the better electoral strategy is mocking religion and building a base of non-religious people that will vote with us for life.
They’re crazy, not stupid. First of all, the argument that Democrats can chip off some members of the religious right goes like this: A lot of these people are eligible to have their heartstrings pulled on the poor and stuff, because Jesus said so, but they need a demonstration from liberals that we think they’re better than the rest of us before they come over. It makes a sort of intuitive sense, because the Republicans do kiss some fundie ass, and because the upswing in evangelical Christianity is partially a reaction from the dominant ethno-cultural group in the U.S. to the fact that the country is becoming racially and religiously diverse, and their cultural dominance is in question. (So they’d better pray harder and build a fence between us and Mexico.) And I’m sure many of them are very nice people on a one-to-one basis, a fact that colors Sullivan’s assessments.
And I don’t doubt, now that the economy is in the tank, we can probably convince enough evangelicals to put the poor and self-interested economic issues first for this next election. But that’s a short term gain that won’t hold. The second the economy gets better, it’s back to voting for the patriarchy and white supremacy, and Democrats are out with yesterday’s trash. Meanwhile, you’ve wasted a lot of political capital trying to lure these people over that could have been spent building up the liberal base, which I’ll get to in a second.
Look, I think the religious nuts are crazy, but they’re not stupid. They have a set of issues that they feel, often for very good reasons, speaks to their need for cultural dominance—a ban on abortion, war on some non-Christian countries, a ban on gay marriage, “under god” in the Pledge, etc.—and Democrats can’t embrace these viewpoints without losing their base. And we’re not going to be able to distract them for long from these major issues with a big smile and a unified blogger class that’s like, “Yeah, sure, we respect your religious woo.” It is well worth remembering that there’s no reason to vote for Republican Lite when you have an actual Republican available.
None of this means that I don’t think there’s diversity amongst evangelicals, as I’m commonly accused. I just don’t think they’re stupid. We’ve already got the liberals ones, the conservative ones can’t be hoodwinked into coming over, and the small number that might be amendable to switching sides will be holding their noses, and doing it just long enough for us to clean up the Republicans’ mess so they can start voting for them again. I want to win elections, alright, but I want to win enough that we can actually move forward.
Temper tantrum-throwing children are unreliable allies. Ever notice how all the responsibility for making nice lays on the shoulders of the non-religious? We’re supposed to quit using terms like “Sky Fairy”, but they’re perfectly free to continue saying that they think we’re headed straight into the fiery pits of hell for all eternity, which is, last I checked, a much worse thing to wish on someone than teasing. Such an unequal amount of responsibility suggests that Amy Sullivan and all others making the “shut up, atheists” argument assume right away that atheists are the better, smarter people. We can’t ask those religious fools to play nice, because they’re impetus children, seems to be the implication. You atheists are the grown-ups, so you have to do the hard work.
While flattery gets you far with me, it won’t get you everywhere. First of all, I think Amy and Kevin are underestimating the intelligence of religious conservative leadership. Even if every single atheist, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc. gathered around the Christmas tree singing “O Holy Night” every year, the conservative leadership would still say that we’re throwing a war on Christmas, because it’s too valuable a propaganda tool to be abandoned in the face of truth. Second of all, if there really are so many evangelicals that are mental children and are so easily swayed by a minor, grumbling, half-assed show of pretending we think they’re so much better than us, then what’s to stop them from running back to the Republicans who are offering them cookies?
Basically, whether or not you think evangelicals are stupid and easily swayed, a la Amy Sullivan, or you think that they’re smart and vote on issues they think are important, like I do, you have the same result—at best, you might get a few of them to vote for Democrats when the Republicans have really fucked up the country but good, but they’re running back to the Republicans to give it to the gays and the women as soon as the economy and the foreign policy side start to shape up enough. If you’re serious about winning elections, you build your base.
How to build a base. Believe it or not, not by carefully trying to chip off a handful of votes from the other side, votes that you probably won’t be able to keep for more than an election cycle or two. What you do is in fact persuade people to see things your way, so that they’re deeply into your camp and can be relied on not only to vote for your party, but to persuade more people to be in it.
You don’t do this by stifling the punditry and organizational outreach that is on your side but not directly under the party banner. In fact, by letting them—nay, encouraging them—to go crazy developing ideas and recruiting people on their own was exactly how conservatives built this evangelical base that so many Democrats longingly circle and fantasize about chipping members off. Or, for other branches of conservatism, you have your right wing punditry, your anti-tax people, the neocons, etc. All these people run around building the base, leaving politicians like George Bush and John McCain to scoop up some swing voters by pretending to be moderate.
There’s nothing stopping us from doing the same thing, and we have the advantage of having proxies (bloggers, organizations, idea people) that are mostly not crazy, though our politicians aren’t just pretending to be moderates. And the outspoken atheists have a big role to play in this, because we can actually persuade people to embrace atheism, putting them in our camp on a more permanent basis in far larger numbers than we’ll get just kissing some fundie butt. 16% of Americans consider themselves unaffiliated with a church, and more than half of them quit the church of their childhood. That means the “secular” population is growing both because people are quitting religion and because they’re then having kids who aren’t religious, either. Those are real numbers we’ve got to work with, and we can’t work with that if we’re staring at our toes, trying to be ashamed of ourselves, in hopes we’ll chip off some evangelical votes.
Not that fundies don’t have a role to play in this. They make great villains. Hey, Republicans built up so many votes railing against long-haired hippes that they still rail against them, even though most of them got haircuts and real jobs. But the Jerry Falwells and James Dobsons of the world are bona fide bad guys. They exist, they are trying to recruit, and they’re out to get me, you, all sorts of people. Going after them guns-a-blazing, and not worrying so much about offending the easily offended Christians out there is a great strategy for reaching out not just to the non-religious, but also to everyone that they are out to get, including moderate Christians who think church is for weddings and funerals (i.e., most Christians).
I think that what gets lost in a lot of these discussions—and this is a topic for a much bigger, more intensive post—is that the face of America is changing rapidly. For the past couple of generations, the identity of the Republicans as being for the white Christians who love the patriarchy and the Democrats for everyone else has been a detriment to Democrats. But America is becoming more diverse all the time. The “rest of us” is not so much a minority anymore, especially once you go down the age scale. I went to the Texas ACLU conference in San Antonio a couple weeks ago and saw a presentation by Stephen Klineberg on the changing face of Texas, and one fact that really stuck out to me was that the white majority shrank ever decade you go down the age scale, and in Texas, once you’re about 40 or younger, you’re living in a Texas where no single ethnic group has a majority. Instead of wasting time and effort trying to chip off this voter of that, maybe it’s time to start thinking of new, innovative ways to reach out to this group of people, taking into consideration that most of us really do live in a different America, one that’s a lot more diverse than in the past.
82 Responses to “Barely winning elections, one boomerang voter at a time”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
DING! DING! DING!
oops…tag close
The other thing that’s a bit weird here: As much as I like Pandagon, it’s not like the kind of rhetoric you get here or at some of the other progressive blogs actually represents the kind of rhetoric you are getting from the mainstream of the party. That is, it’s not like Clinton or Obama are talking about the flying spaghetti monster or the disco ball. Most mainstream candidates from the non-Republican mainstream party not only are respectful of religion in their rhetoric - they are actual bona fide churchgoers themselves. So the argument is wrong for the reasons you lay out here, but it seems to be also factually wrong from the perspective of an Amy Sullivan type.
Exactly. Amy’s suggestion is very far-reaching—basically, we’re running off potential voters until every grouchy atheist learns to STFU. Because seriously, the idea that we blasphemers are some kind of strong voice in the party is a joke. We’re a small minority that’s off in the corner, growing our size but certainly not the mainstream in any way.
I mostly agree with what you’re saying but I think you misrepresent what KD at least is saying. He does not think we’ll get conservative evangelists to vote Democrat, but that perhaps we can get more of the liberal evangelists to vote. You say they already do, but (like most groups) many of them do not vote–perhaps more of them would vote if they weren’t insulted too much (and note they don’t insult us, it’s the conservative evangelists that mostly insult us atheist/agnostics).
Note this doesn’t mean we have to change ANY of our positions (after all the liberal evangelsists mostly agree with us).
Oh yeah, I was also going to second chingona. There is exactly one atheist in Congress and yet Democrats are insulting the religious?
“I think that what gets lost in a lot of these discussions—and this is a topic for a much bigger, more intensive post—is that the face of America is changing rapidly.”
…which is really at the heart of the fear that motivates so many of the fundies to cram their agenda down our throats.
Since they have been near the top of the political foodchain, at some level they understand that in the end they will lose power and influence as America becomes increasingly diverse.
But these things take a long time. And right now, even if their power will increasingly be affected by long-term demographic changes, they still have a lot of it, and they’re going to wield it with all their might until somebody takes the keys away.
The unique thing the Democrats have is a commitment to social justice, which the fundies have almost completely abandoned in favor of “protecting” symbolic targets like blastocysts. If the economy tanks as badly as it looks like it might, there might be an FDR-like sea change…
JohnL, that’s an increasingly narrow scope of voters. It might be enough (though I doubt it) to swing a squeaker election, but this is the time for Democrats to start thinking big. That’s honestly why I’m behind Obama. He’s got a campaign style that needs to be rewarded, because the return on it is going to grow greater and greater—basically invigorating people with a vision of a new America that treats its increasing diversity as an advantage instead of a problem.
Seriously, asking people to shut up about something should only be done if they’re just really going to turn off large numbers of people, and even then, I’m doubtful that it’s wise and instead think we should all say our piece and let it all sort itself out. But the people this strategy is supposed to get keeps getting narrowed down. First it was non-voting and moderate evangelicals—now what? Just a handful of already liberal evangelicals who don’t vote? That’s like 10 people.
I’d add that I do think there are large numbers of disaffected people who don’t vote who could be brought over to the Democrats. But it’s not that a few people that aren’t actually speaking for the party make jokes about the Sky Fairy that is what’s driving them off. It’s what the party doesn’t do for them—we need to be talking economic justice, and back that up with action. Right now, I can’t help but fear we’re going to elect a Democrat and we’re somehow not going to get our universal health care. And all those people who hit the polls trying to vote a better life for themselves and their families are going to rightfully feel robbed and give up on hope that the democratic system will work for them.
Pointing fingers at grouchy atheists is just so much scapegoating in the face of ugly facts like that. I hope the Democrats prove my worst fears wrong. God knows I need the consistent health insurance.
How about grin and actually respect that a large number of religious people hold their beliefs for reasons that seem good to them? (Note the conspicuous lack of reference to thumpers, who I agree are out of reach.)
You don’t have to understand how they feel, you don’t have to agree with them, but maybe you can recognize that it really matters to them, and that it hurts to have something precious mocked.
I mean, if someone was mocking gay folks for falling in love with MOTSS, it would probably piss you off. You may or may not understand how someone could feel an attraction for a MOTSS, but even if you don’t, it doesn’t matter because you can see that the love is there, and it’s real, and it’s worthy of respect.
So why can’t you feel the same way for people who love a certain idea?
Most mainstream candidates from the non-Republican mainstream party not only are respectful of religion in their rhetoric - they are actual bona fide churchgoers themselves.
Tha’ts not enough! Every atheist and agnostic must drop to his or her knees and cry “We’re not worthy!” three times when in the presence of a True Christian.
They’ll still enjoy imagining us being tortured in hell, but they’ll try to seem a bit less smug about it. That’s compromise, Winger-style
LongHairedWeirdo -
Why, again, is it always that us mean old atheists have to be nice to religious people so we don’t hurt their feelings? If the power dynamic were different, maybe I could agree with you, but religious people (or at least, Christians in the U.S.) get tons of lip service from almost every politician and the media. Why do you need more of it from the meanie atheists, when we’re the ones begging for scraps, at the bottom of the totem pole in acceptability, being damned to hell on a regular basis? I don’t understand this at all. Would it be better if atheists weren’t assholes to theists? Sure, and I suspect that in everyday interactions, most of us are respectful of people’s beliefs, contrary to what you might imagine. Are theists entitled to atheists’ bending over backwards to be nice when they already have everyone else doing it? No way.
But Longhaired, I do respect religious people, personally, and a lot more than Kevin Drum or Amy Sullivan. I respect their intelligence, and suspect that they pick who they vote for because they want to get behind what that person stands for. I know I can’t run for office because so many religious people have made religion a litmus test. They don’t respect me, and I live with that. So what? We can vote for the same candidate. They can run around trying to recruit by saying I’m going to hell, and I can run around trying to recruit by saying that they’re full of shit. We have genuine differences of opinion.
Now, as for what’s best for the party, name me one major Democratic candidate who has ever let the term “Sky Fairy” pass between her lips. One. Just one. They have the respect, and we can’t run for most offices.
And that’s the point. Amy Sullivan’s real point is that she’s (rightfully) kind of embarrassed about being an evangelical, and those of us on the margins who speak our minds on this make her mad, and she’s trying to use the threat of electoral losses to make us shut up so she can have her delusions in peace. That is anti-democracy and betrays the point of free speech. We have as much right and obligation to speak our minds, try to persuade people to our side, and yes, engage in forms of rhetoric including mockery as anyone else. Hell, we’re nice! At least we don’t imagine horrid physical tortures for those who disagree and claim these are inevitable. We don’t threaten major electoral losses unless you’re nice to us. We vote for people who are different. We don’t threaten at all.
Once again, I’m amused by the assumption that atheists have to be the bigger people—of course one would assume that. We’re already the bigger people, even when we tease. But let’s be fair. A lot of moderate Christians are adults, too, and would vote for an atheist that they find appealing on policy levels. We don’t have to insult all Christians and assume they need to be catered to in order to cast their votes thoughtfully.
LongHairedWeirdo:
There was a study done asking men and women what they were most afraid of from the other sex. The men said they were afraid of being made fun of. The women said they were afraid of being killed.
This is similarly true for all dynamics of power and oppression.
Religion is held above non-religion. The non-religion have to fear censorship, loss of jobs, abuse, and yes, even death in certain places in this country. The worst the religious will face is mockery.
Get over yourselves. People will mock you. Atheists will say you believe in a sky fairy. You know why? Because every day that atheist has to walk a gauntlet of a world that bows and scraps before religion (specifically protestant christianity). A world awash in messages that this atheist is a sinner, will burn in Hell, is unfit to raise children, is not wanted, and that the atheist must “respect” “Christian” and religious arguments against scientific progress and human rights.
If the atheist becomes grumpy, if they do not end their day with flattery for the religious, telling them they deserve to be religious, they are seen as a problem. This is true of all minorities as well.
So Long Hair, get over it. Some people in this country may not pretend your religion deserves total cultural dominance. They may be rude and dare to think their views are real and worthy of respect. You own this country. You supposedly have real faith.
Well, the one thing constant about people of real faith is they don’t give a shit what the pissant on the street thinks because they know what they believe. Those who really believe, don’t need everyone on the planet to parrot their faith back to them, voice filled with fear-laden “respect”. Those with real faith go it alone with only their faith to comfort them.
Think about it.
One of the things that bugs me is non-fundie evangelicals whining about how “not all evangelicals are right-wing.” Sorry they’ve stolen your good name, but unless you start caring enough about it to give yourself a new one, there’s not much the rest of the world can do for you.
Take some responsibility for the fact that evil is being done in your name. I’m not going to give up telling the truth about the fundies just because you won’t.
And Amy Sullivan’s problem is that she CANNOT accept that there are people who think she’s not a good Christian. So she demands that everyone to the left of her shut up, in hopes of winning the approval of those to her right.
Also, the idea that mocking the Sky Fairy is the same as mocking a real person who is gay doesn’t pass my sniff test. Religion is a belief, an idea, not a person. I make fun of all sorts of people based on their beliefs, from ghost hunters to warbloggers. What you believe is always up for grabs in the marketplace of ideas.
Look, people try to be humorous about feminism all the time, and by and large, I let it go. Mostly it’s not funny—if you’re stupid enough to be anti-feminist, you’re probably not funny—but I’d never put making cracks about hairy-legged feminists into the same category as gay-bashing. Once in awhile, an anti-feminist manages to get in a crack that I have to admit is funny. My attitude is that I just mock back when feminists are mocked. Some things grown-ups have to roll with. I realize it’s a little confusing at times, but there’s a huge difference between persecuting a group of people and using mockery to take the piss out of an ideology you oppose.
Amy’s suggestion is very far-reaching—basically, we’re running off potential voters until every grouchy atheist learns to STFU.
Isn’t this the overall point everywhere?
“One of the things that bugs me is non-fundie evangelicals whining about how “not all evangelicals are right-wing.” Sorry they’ve stolen your good name, but unless you start caring enough about it to give yourself a new one, there’s not much the rest of the world can do for you.”
…all the “non-fundie” evangelicals could meet together in a Howard Johnson’s. If the Democrats got every one of them, it wouldn’t be noticed.
Much better to target young people who haven’t bought into the Reichwing fantasy and realize they are part of the world and must exercise stewardship for their own and everybody else’s sake…
I should elaborate on my last point.
Dennett talks about a belief in belief. Because many of us “grumpy atheists” don’t grant that belief in belief any validity, the problem lies with us. The belief in belief is not to be questioned. After all, “faith” is a universal good that ties people together, no matter what the content of that “faith” is. The problem is those of us who don’t share any faith whatsoever.
That’s the key right there–I’d be willing to bet that the younger you go demographically, the less religion matters to people, especially among the educated set, and those are people who the Democrats should be snatching into their fold. They’re the ones who have loads of gay friends, and who believe that gay people should be able to marry. They’re a lot more liberal on other social issues as well. It’s a hell of a lot easier to get them to vote for you by not insulting their intelligence and telling them that they matter than it is to peel off some people who will demand we abandon some of our core principles. Get the coming generations on our side, and conservatism will have to adjust by becoming less conservative.
[quote]The worst the religious will face is mockery.[/quote]
Someone should tell the Jews, Muslims and other religious minorities in this country that. I’m sure they’ll be glad to hear it.
Not to mention you ignore the fact that moderate and liberal Christians are welcomed with open-arms by the right-wing. They’re considered sinners and traitors for supporting gay rights, a woman’s right to choose, opposing the war in Iraq, supporting the separation of religion and state and believing in evolution.
[quote]One of the things that bugs me is non-fundie evangelicals whining about how “not all evangelicals are right-wing.”[/quote]
A ridiculous argument when made by Republicans about Muslims and radical Muslims and a ridiculous argument now. There are evangelicals and other Christians, like the Red Letter Christians, Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo, the people at Sojourners and Christian Century, and the congregations of many moderate and progressive churches that are working to change this.
Because you don’t know about them doesn’t mean they aren’t out there fighting the good fight.
The worst the religious will face is mockery.
Someone should tell the Jews, Muslims and other religious minorities in this country that. I’m sure they’ll be glad to hear it.
Not to mention you ignore the fact that moderate and liberal Christians are welcomed with open-arms by the right-wing. They’re considered sinners and traitors for supporting gay rights, a woman’s right to choose, opposing the war in Iraq, supporting the separation of religion and state and believing in evolution.
One of the things that bugs me is non-fundie evangelicals whining about how “not all evangelicals are right-wing.”
A ridiculous argument when made by Republicans about Muslims and radical Muslims and a ridiculous argument now. There are evangelicals and other Christians, like the Red Letter Christians, Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo, the people at Sojourners and Christian Century, and the congregations of many moderate and progressive churches that are working to change this.
Because you don’t know about them doesn’t mean they aren’t out there fighting the good fight.
We are but epochal milliseconds advanced from fearing the angry god causing the heavens to rumble by driving a chariot drawn by goats, scant seconds ahead of fearing that Zeus would fling a lightning bolt upon our heads…
Many still believe that bad weather is a sure sign that some god or another is punishing us.
The remarkable thing about mankind’s childish continued adherance to the unreasoned appointment of deities is not that so many believe…
Rather, I’m impressed by how many of us are intellectually mature enough to recognize it all for the drivel it truly is.
Many progressives are churchgoers, but they don’t make it a REASON you ought to get their vote and don’t use it as a cudgel against those of another party.
The Civil Rights movement was strongly motivated and led by religious people. (Dr. Martin Luther King was not a medical doctor…)
OK?
Rather, I’m impressed by how many of us are intellectually mature enough to recognize it all for the drivel it truly is.
Be careful. A tornado may be coming your way…..
There is exactly one atheist in Congress and yet Democrats are insulting the religious?
Who is this person?
Bring it on…
If there really is an angry petulant easily insulted christian god who is so small minded as to react with violence whenever somone misuses its name, I would actually rather be dead.
And I’m REALLY REALLY enjoying hitting the “Blaspheme” button on this post!
What kind of truly moral person, of whatever religious or nonreligious stripe, would say, “I know what’s right, but before I’m going to do it you’ve got to ask me really nicely”? Because that’s the vibe I keep getting from Sullivan’s pieces. And that’s just wrong. If these reachable but currently non-democrat-voting believers are so effing righteous, they should take it as a test of their faith to be able to vote democratic without being coddled. Their savior even said that you were supposed to do your good deeds without hoping for public acclaim.
Working from fallible memory rather than a cite here, but I believe this is a reference to a Representative Stark, I think his first name is Pete, a Democrat from California. Probably from the LA area somewhere IIRC.
And also IIRC, he has only recently proclaimed his atheism, but has been re-elected since doing so, having served many terms before.
And I also think he’s a member of a Unitarian Universalist congregation.
WWho is this person?
Yup, Pete Stark. What an amazing threat. One member of Congress. However shall Amy Sullivan cope?!?!
Meanwhile. But hey, as long as Sullivan gets to make worthless points, who cares about actual human lives?
On the topic:
I always figure that the only strategies that deserve to win are the honest ones. Maybe this is just me; I don’t think I am a very good liar, so it’s easier for me to stick to the truth, despite the immediately forseeable negative consequences.
So I argue against the more militant statements of atheism because I personally believe something different, but I greatly value the company, and when I can honestly earn it, the esteem, of so many of you, because I believe you are being truthful about what you really think. And that’s something I associate with progressives in general.
We can’t win by out-hypocriting the professional hypocrites of reaction.
And progressive people of faith, who are quite real enough, will not become reactionaries just because someone somewhere is forthright about their atheism.
I actually think the real problem we face is not ridiculous beliefs about metaphysical things, but absurd credos about secular reality. That’s where the dangerous irrationalism is–people go on believing stuff about the pragmatic world long after it has been demonstrated false by circumstances, even their own life circumstances.
If in fact “spiritual” beliefs are bogus and bunk, the explanation as to why people cling to them must surely lie in the sphere of social compulsions. So too do we all cling to demonstratable falsehoods in the secular sphere, for the same reasons and by the same mechanisms, God or no god.
So strategically we might do better to concentrate our fire on those irrationalities.
Except that when I do consider them myself, I can see the battles are not easy. I have no more certainty that I am right about my notions about where our mainstream ideology is wrong and where it is tolerably close to the truth than I do about the nature of God, and a lot is at stake messing with the machinery of our day to day lives.
I recall some thread here some weeks or perhaps months ago where Amanda’s own mother logged in. She explained (not directly apropos of the subject at hand, IIRC) that she agreed with Amanda about many things but was against “redistribution of wealth,” which made a difference on many points.
Well, I’d argue that wealth is getting redistributed all the time, and lately has been getting redistruted more and more toward those who have most of it already, while the rest of us (who, I would argue, create pretty much all of it) stagger along on less and less of it.
But at the end of the day–I sure don’t have the power to enforce and hence demonstrate my notions on my own, nor do I think that even now there is a solid power basis here in the USA to gainsay this particular good old American shibboleth, which goes back to Jacksonian times, if not to Thomas Jefferson. Even people who think this is humbug, like me, certainly won’t prosper going around saying it. Some of us are stupid that way and go ahead and say it anyway, hoping someday people will have the courage to stand up and repeat it if they too think it’s true. But meanwhile it’s not the smart way to bet, and after all perhaps I’m wrong and people like my parents or Amanda’s, who have after all accomplished some solid things in their lives, are right.
Unlike me, Amanda is also an accomplished person. I notice though that she doesn’t go around denouncing capitalism as much as I do. I figure she doesn’t believe all the extreme stuff I do, not on that front anyway, and who knows, maybe this is because she is more correct than I am.
So just go on telling the truth as we each see it, and let others lie strategically. Who is doing which gets revealed in the fullness of time.
Incertus Brian -
Don’t be so sure about the youth = progressive idea. I am running into more and more young people who claim to be “conservative republicans” (of the NEOCON variety). I don’t really understand the concept of how one can be conservative when he/she is young, except it is what they learned at home, and it is a matter of copying the parents because the child doesn’t know how to think for him/herself.
I recently had a female coworker (maybe 25 years old?) state that she would “leave the country if Hillary wins” and that “McCain is not conservative enough” for her. Holy crap.
I live in the bible-beating South, so I’m sure that’s part of it as well.
AnneF
March 17, 2008 at 7:25 pm
The worst the religious will face is mockery.
Someone should tell the Jews, Muslims and other religious minorities in this country that. I’m sure they’ll be glad to hear it.
and who exactly is persecuting said minorities… i’ll give you a hint: it ain’t the atheists.
i’ll give you a hint: it ain’t the atheists.
You just don’t get it! Faith, no matter the content, is what matters. We atheists, lacking in the requisite contentless necessity of “faith” are the true enemy.
Not to mention you ignore the fact that moderate and liberal Christians are welcomed with open-arms by the right-wing. They’re considered sinners and traitors for supporting gay rights, a woman’s right to choose, opposing the war in Iraq, supporting the separation of religion and state and believing in evolution.
Well, then, why all the bellyaching about atheists and agnostics, then? Seems like your biggest problem is folks within your own belief system. Seriously. All I’m saying is there is no God; your fellow Christians (for those that are indeed Christian) are tell you you’re doing it wrong. And they think both of us are going to Hell.
Because you don’t know about them doesn’t mean they aren’t out there fighting the good fight.
Well, they certainly aren’t what you’d call the majority, are they? How many go-to-chruch-on-Easter-and-Christmas types know who Jim Wallis is as opposed to Pat Robertson? Again, as sophiefair noted, it ain’t atheists that are your problem here, either. Your Dobson and Falwell Christians just make for better press than the relative handful of actively progressive Christians. But again, how are atheists being all atheisty really the problem here?
Lest we forget, organized religion has only fairly recently been a tool for progressive social change, and it’s been fought be the conservative elements of religion every step of the way. Maybe the problem is somewhere within. In any event, I fail to see how the problem can be caused by the occasional “sky fairy” crack.
Amy’s suggestion is very far-reaching—basically, we’re running off potential voters until every grouchy atheist learns to STFU.
If she - and they, for they are legion - have any other point, I totally fail to see what it is. It reminds me of when I go home for family visist and my uncle says the blessing. My aunt caught me not bowing my head in prayer and when questioned “Well, would you rather me fake it”, she indicated that she did. “It’s more respectful” I was told.
Respect=shut your hole and lie.
*Shrug*
There’s a huge difference between being nice to someone, and in accepting that they’re different from you, and maybe you don’t get it, and maybe you don’t even like it, but it’s still okay, you can leave them alone about it.
Note that I’m emphatically *not* saying that you shouldn’t be willing to fight back against noxious ideas. But if a religious asshole is being an asshole, the problem is the assholery, not the religion.
But that’s just the problem, Longhariedweirdo -if someone is being an asshole for any other reason, criticism is expected and accepted. But religiously based assholery expects respect - it assumes exemption from criticism just becasue it is religious assholery.
Look at some of the “religious exemptions” that get official “respect”: don’t vaccinate your kids for religious reasons and “snap” OK; object becasue of suspicions that thimeresol may cause autism and one has to “prove it.”
Homeschool your children for academic reasons - it was illegal for years. Then the Amish claimed a religious exception to deny secondary education so that their children are forced to remain Amish (try succeeding in 21st century AMerica without a high school diploma) and it’s OK because it is based on a religious belief. And we can go on…..
But Longhaired, being an atheist means a lifetime of not being left alone about it. Apparently, a central tenet of Christianity is harrassing people in public about it. I’m lucky enough to live in a liberal college town with a lot of atheists around me (Berkeley, CA) but I know that others are not so lucky and do have to deal with genuine oppression for being atheist, should they choose to be public about it.
Frankly, your reaction is very common for someone who has a lifetime of being on the side of privilege (in this case, religious) and is particularly appalled when the tables are turned, not realizing that it’s that and more when you’re on the not-privileged side. You’re whining presumably under the assumption that many atheists are openly hostile towards religious individuals, which is not only hard to find in Amanda’s original post, but under the current power dynamic is largely irrelevant anyway. So leave us alone.
This is not to say that I don’t agree with your general kumbaya sentiment, because I do. But I’m sick of every discussion of religion from an atheist perspective being hijacked by someone whining “but atheists just need to be nicer!”
To AnneF: More of the population would vote for a president who was a religious minority (yes, even Muslim) than an atheist.
First, I don’t apologize for making that comparison, but I do acknowledge that it wasn’t the best comparison that could be made. Argument by analogy is always inexact, and I was emphatically not trying to, e.g., equate distaste for religion with homophobia.
The gist of it is, a lot of people *can’t* understand how a man could fall in love with another man, or a woman with another woman. But they can understand that it *does* happen, and accept it, and figure it’s not worth giving anyone any grief over.
I’m suggesting that the same kind of thing could be at play. Maybe you don’t understand how someone could be sincerely religious. Maybe, to you, religion doesn’t mean anything, so you can’t understand how it can feel when it does mean something. Maybe, to you, people could just wake up one day and drop their religious beliefs. And maybe that’s just not the case. Maybe if you could peek inside the mind of certain religious folks, you’d realize that, if you felt the way they did, you’d have to be religious too.
Or maybe not.
That was the idea I was trying to raise.
Listen: I didn’t want what I said to come across as nasty or accusatory or demanding. If it came across that way, it means I fucked up, and I’m sorry about that. It was intended to raise an idea, to be thought about or not, accepted or rejected, whatever.
And that’s all I can say about this… I’ve got some personal stuff sapping my energy and screwing with my thoughts.
why must we abuse the faeries??? leave the poor things alone, its not like we haven’t killed most of them with our iron!
“eh-hem”
sorry, sometimes my pagan silliness overrides my self-control and i make fun of people making fun of people
and, seriously, the only athiest i know is my dad. and my mom says he believes in a “great computer in the sky”… so where does the fairy come from? i have never heard “sky fairy/faery” before…
and yes, i too am at the front of the line for hell-fire. which i also don’t believe in.
Pete Stark is from the southern-East Bay area, and has his home offices in Fremont. His district is next to Barbara Lee’s, who is based out of Oakland, and between them make up a big chunk of my Personal Hero category.
I appreciate this topic and thread so much. I study medieval Europe, and let me tell you, that earlier comment about us being only a blink of history’s eye away from that time when every bit of organized society operated within a religious framework rings so true every time religious politicians in this country open their mouths. Actually, one of the main reasons I study that time period is to make an intellectual career out of mocking religion, but in a safe way.
And how sad is it that the only “safe” way to mock religion is mocking what happened eight hundred years ago? Even then, people still get touchy. “You know the church isn’t still like that don’t you?” Huh, right. Could’ve fooled me. Last I checked, the Pope is still wearing that stupid hat.
Last I checked, the Pope is still wearing that stupid hat.
Haw haw!
And still hating women, and still emphasizing the misogyny on which the Catholic church is based — don’t give me Mary as an example of how much the church loves wimmenz, because church legend has it that she NEVER had sex, even after she was MARRIED! Because sex is not for PURE women!
…And still hating gays, and still calling God “He,” and still telling everyone who doesn’t believe as the church does that hell (ok maybe just purgatory) awaits them after death.
“Husbands, do love your wives. Wives, submit to your husbands in all things.”
I’m supposed to tolerate this crap? FTS.
MikeEss -
This is actually not true. “Evangelical” just means that you’re out actively recruiting for your religion. Evangelicals don’t need to be fundamentalist, and I daresay most of them are not.
However, that’s unimportant. Because the important bit is the bit that Amanda already said:
(Emphasis added). The liberal evangelicals are pretty much the non-fundamentalist evangelicals. Fundamentalist religions are almost always reactionary-conservative by their very nature and so we have no hope of convincing them to come over and vote for Democrats. The liberal ones - the ones who care about social justice over god-bothering and panty sniffing (yes, they do exist) - are already so turned off by the GOP’s “I got mine so fuck you” mantra that they won’t vote for Republicans unless they are forced into it (i.e. if the Dems run a candidate who is also on the “I got mine so fuck you” bandwagon against social justice). Even then they’re more likely to vote Green or abstain. The best bet for picking up liberal and moderate Christians is to run farther to the left on social justice issues, not just “change the rhetoric” so that you sound “more respectful”. What’s more, the liberal evangelicals are among the most fervent defenders of the principals of Separation of Church and State - they know the benefits of a pluralistic society as much as the atheists, Jews, Muslims and other members of non-majority religions do. So talking up the “God Talk” makes them almost as uncomfortable as it does a “Catholic atheist” like me.
(I’m also getting quite annoyed by the condescension that just reeks from both Amy Sullivan and Kevin Drum’s writing when they talk about those of us who don’t live on the coasts. They constantly make us out to be complete idiots - like little children who just need to be lied to, or coddled, or whatever. Drum especially has written some things over this last year that make me want to scream - and make me want to invite him to come live in Columbus, OH or St. Lois, MO for a year and see what life is really like out here in the midwest. We’re not the cast of Green Acres, no matter how much he seems to think it.)
AnneF —
I appreciate what you’re saying.
There is a larger Christian left than most Pandagonites are away of (or care to be aware of). And it wouldn’t matter to them even if they cared to learn about it.
And I believe there are many many more moderate and liberal evangelicals than Amanda thinks. Enough to seriously matter in elections, and to drive forward real, lasting progressive change.
(Does hard data exist to confirm or refute this?)
But you’re wasting your time. Amanda has a major and rather stubborn blind spot about spirituality — well, if it’s Christian spirituality anyhow — as do her most enthusiastic supporters. You won’t change that.
You know, if gay and lesbian people were out there demanding that everyone be gay, or at least that straight people make sure to acknowledge the basic moral superiority of gay people and adopt a punitive attitude towards people who aren’t gay or don’t live a gay enough lifestyle, and if it were extremely difficult for openly straight people to get elected in the States, then your comparison might work.
As it is, it really doesn’t. It’s a very rare secularist who actually wants to prevent religious people from practising their religion; most of the resentment and Sky Fairy jokes exist because religious people try to make secularists abide by religious laws.
“And I believe there are many many more moderate and liberal evangelicals than Amanda thinks. Enough to seriously matter in elections, and to drive forward real, lasting progressive change.”
Question:
Assuming you’re right, are those moderate/liberal evangelicals voting Democratic already or not?
If they have been voting Democratic, they haven’t made much of an impact, at least as compared to the Reichwing’s lock on the fundnuts.
If they haven’t been voting Democratic, then are they really moderate/liberal?…
Ah, so basically it’s “pushy imposing arsehole” in christian-speak then?
To follow on NonyNony’s comments…
I call myself a Christian, but I am neither a fundamentalist nor an evangelical. I don’t believe Amanda (or any atheist) is going to burn in hell just for being an atheist. I don’t believe hell even exists. If there is a heaven, I don’t see why I have a better claim to being allowed in than Amanda.
Christianity has got a pretty bad name for itself amongst many Pandagonians, and justifiably so. Being damned by the Looney Right to writhe in agony amidst a lake of fire for all eternity gets kind of annoying after while.
Bear in mind, however, that the reichwing condemns left-wing Christians just as much as it condemns atheists, because in their eyes I’m no more a “Christian” than Amanda is.
I agree with the larger point being made here, that atheists shouldn’t be expected to suck it up for the team just to lure conservative Christians to vote Democratic. Frankly, I don’t think they can be lured to the left anyway.
I think our time would be better spent fostering dialogue amongst ourselves. We seem to expend a lot of effort pointing our guns at each other, time that could be better spent confronting the beast on the right.
You’re making a lot of assumptions there. Many of us WERE sincerely religious, at one time or other, and remember quite well what it was like. From my perspective, I criticize religion not because I don’t understand it, but because I understand all too well.
The argument here doesn’t really make sense. “The conservative ones won’t switch over, the liberal ones are already on our side, and the moderate ones are really just conservatives anyway because they buy the patriarchal/racist cultural narrative and will sell us out when the economy is good” — well, when you boil that narrative down all the way, doesn’t that apply to every voter in America?
I mean, what makes that argument different for evangelical Christians, or religious types in general, than for everyone? I hope you would agree that “don’t bother trying to win over more voters; everyone’s already either on our side or our enemies’, and no one’s going to change!” is not a defensible position for the overall progressive movement.
I think relying on atheist/non-religious voters to be inherently more progressive, or more amenable to becoming progressive (which is how I read the last part of this post) is… not going to work out any better for anyone than trying to court conservative evangelicals is. There are plenty of “rational” atheists out there who are dedicated to myopic pro-wealthy economic policies and who will spout hateful gibberish about women or POC on the back of “scientific” evidence; the ones who see all that crap for what it is (like atheist/non-religious readers of Pandagon) are, as you say, already on our side.
No, I’m sure everybody is well aware that there are liberal Christians. So what? That still doesn’t mean that Amanda or anybody else has to STFU. It doesn’t mean that there aren’t a bunch of asshole Christians out there trying to make all our lives miserable. So atheists don’t show enough respect towards religion to please you when we talk to one another. Try to imagine how little I care.
That still doesn’t mean that Amanda or anybody else has to STFU.
Yes it does….well at least critical atheists have to.
“Yes it does….well at least critical atheists have to.”
Why, it’s eerily reminiscent of attacks on another social phenomenon:
You can be
gayatheist if you want and (more or less) be accepted, just as long you don’t act on yourorientationbeliefs…Yeah, really. As far as I’m concerned, all that Protestantism hasn’t really happened. There is a direct intellectual link between today’s fundies and the Catholic Church of 1215 and Pope Innocent III; they’re all still feeding at the same trough of misogynist scripture. And a badly translated one, I might add. No one in their right mind should take the word of the King James Bible at face value.
This is why I have no patience for Bible-based religion at all, no matter what. How am I not supposed to laugh at a book where being turned into a pillar of salt is a perfectly acceptable punishment for your disobedient wife? Read it again sometime.
And apparently, believing in the dominant religion in the Western world and collectively the most powerful cultural institution in our history, EVER, also makes one completely unable to take a fucking joke. That comment above, I forget who, about mockery being the only thing the oppressor class has to fear from the oppressed, is so spot-on I cheered.
Listen, all you religious: once athiests have gotten in a good thousand years of executing people who don’t agree with us, then you can tell us to lay off the sky fairy jokes. And I really don’t care if you come from one of those cute Jesus-loves-everybody happy smile churches. Are you using the Bible? Yes? End of discussion.
Well, no, but this is a question of strategy, no? The question isn’t whether people can be convinced, it’s whether pissing off your base is a good way to win votes in the long term. The “I respect you Christian voters soooooooo much more than others, I wish I were one of you, I’m soooooooo sorry I’m pro-choice, etc.” strategy angers the liberal base and it doesn’t work. Better to try to appeal to people on different grounds.
Sullivan makes what may be an interesting point in her post at Kevin Drum’s today: refusals in the past by some democratic operatives even to engage with religious organizations. Assuming her version is accurate, that would be stupid. I see nothing wrong with meeting people who believe differently and saying, “Hey. We may not all have the same religious beliefs, or any religious beliefs at all, but let’s talk about the issues we can work together on.” That wouldn’t be pandering, it would simply be getting the word out.
(Of course, that may not be what happened at all.)
Amanda, you have some valid points about fundamentalists, but if you think you respect them, you are sadly mistaken. You speak of them with unbridled contempt, which isn’t to say your opinions are all wrong, but please, let’s call a spade a spade.
I agree with many of your points about Amy Sullivan, but where I think you are wrong is that you talk about religious conservatives as if there is only one of them. The fact is that there are millions of people who call themselves evangelicals who embody a wide range of beliefs on a host of topics.
To say that none of them will vote for you if you don’t agree with them on issue X or Y is foolhardy because nobody agrees with any politician on everything. Yes, some fundamentalists have a litmust test with abortion or gay rights, and those are a lost cause.
But a portion — whether it is 20 or 30 or 40% — don’t have such a test and could be pursuaded to vote for a Democrat for other reasons. Those are the people Democrats should and could appeal to. And I’m sure your former employer — whom I wish were the Democratic nominee — would agree.
I don’t buy the oppression and privilege rhetoric in relation to atheism. Nor, frankly, do I believe in athiesm as a sign of diversity. If I had to bet, I’d give you good odds that the majority of sky fairy jokes came from people generally identified as white and whose parents fell into the the top 30th income percentile or better. And if anyone can cite a case where social services have taken away children, or someone has lost a job, over athiesm in the last few decades, I’d love to see it.
As far as the political issue goes, I see this differently. For the record, I don’t actually think you’ll lose many votes with “sky fairy” cracks. But until your politicians embrace the principle of “no anihilation without representation” millions of people in the crosshairs of your current regime depend on you to vote some sane people into office. And frankly, in that context, I don’t have much patience for the objection to giving up “sky fairy” and other alienating practises. In my judgment, the right of the children in Iran not to get bombed outweighs anyone’s right to make cracks at organised religion.
You may disagree on that, but please remember that belonging to the 5% of the population with 60% of the miltary might does carry some responsibility.
Yeah, ok. Atheists don’t win the gold medal at the Oppression Olympics. But you’re a fool if you don’t think atheists lose jobs or homes over their lack of religion.
John Spragge -
Just because many atheists are white and privileged in other ways doesn’t mean that they don’t deal with privilege dynamics with regards to their religion/lack thereof. That’s like saying a white, gay man doesn’t face oppression for being gay because he has white and male privilege, or a wealthy poc doesn’t face oppression for not being white because of class privilege. Intersectionality? Anyone? Anyone? this is pretty basic stuff. You can argue all day about which oppressions are worse (and I’d argue that atheism is probably pretty low on the scale, honestly) but there’s really no point to the argument. Unrelated privileges do not “wipe out” oppressions. Period.
Diversity of thought only includes religious though. What is it we atheists have been saying the usual response to us is, again? STFU? Yup, sounds familiar, Spragge.
So, 84 percent of the country is religiously affiliated, but only 16 percent are atheist/agnostic.
Your strategy is to go hard after the 16 percent and gratuitously insult the other 84.
Two words: Dumb. Shits.
Entomologista & Blair:
If everyone uses the language of privilege and oppression, then everyone will eventually claim to belong to one oppressed group or another, at which point nobody can make any special claim for redress. Logically, to prevent the language of privilege and oppression from losing its meaning requires making claims of oppression with more care than the phrase “oppression olympics” would suggest.
MAJeff:
The rise in atheism does not indicate cultural diversity, and I seriously doubt fundamentalist religious groups rose in a reaction to fear that “white” people would lose their cultural hegemony.
“Your strategy is to go hard after the 16 percent and gratuitously insult the other 84.”
Yeah, it would be SO much better if we told everybody we believed that a clump of cells in some woman’s uterus is more important that a real breathing person.
It would be better if we told everybody that LGBT people are so repellent that we must pass legislation limiting their civil rights.
It would be so much better if we told everybody we believe god wants us to screw things up in the Middle East so bad that god has to come to earth just to straighten it all out - and that’s a GOOD thing.
It would be so much better if we told everybody that we need to throw away large portions of the Constitution because it must be made to conform to OUR ideas of how this country should be run.
Yeah, that would be so much better…
MikeEss:
I don’t ask you to compromise or give an inch on civil rights for everyone, including the LGBTQ community, or on the right of women to reproductive freedom, or on decent policies in the Middle East. I wouldn’t give on these matters myself, and neither would a lot of the Christians I know. And you’d need a really big HoJo to hold us all.
So what does anyone want you to give on? As far as I can tell, just the insults. Stuff like “sky fairy”. If you can identify a principle behind those insults (aside from the argument that since some Christian who despises everything you and I believe politically said you would go to hell, you’ll retaliate by insulting my religious beliefs), then fine. But if you want to write things like “sky fairy” because it feels good, then I have this to say (again): you live in a country where the dominant political party does not get the principle of “no anihilation without representation”. You have, quite probably, the fate of millions of people in your hands; people who have no voice but yours to stop the bombs which plenty of influential Americans (not, by any means, all Christian) would like to send their way.
“I don’t ask you to compromise or give an inch on civil rights for everyone, including the LGBTQ community, or on the right of women to reproductive freedom, or on decent policies in the Middle East. I wouldn’t give on these matters myself, and neither would a lot of the Christians I know.”
That’s obviously good. And I truly hope there ARE a lot of other christians who feel the same. If that’s the case, then you are not the kind of religious people I am concerned with.
But you and I both know there are plenty of christians who do not feel that way. In fact, they believe god tells them they MUST be intolerant of various differences among people or they are not correctly following their religions tenets. An example Pam just posted.
“And you’d need a really big HoJo to hold us all.”
Okay, I was exaggerating. I’m sure you knew that too.
Obviously I really do hope there are a lot of reasonable religious people.
I asked a question above (of somebody else), and received no answer, so I’ll ask you:
If there are a lot of these moderate/reasonable/fundie religous people, don’t they already vote Democratic? And if they don’t, are they really moderate/reasonable AND fundie?…
Amanda wrote, on February 8, 2007:
Shall we assume from your article that the quotation above no longer applies? Or that it never did?
More here.
Seroj wrote:
Sixteen percent seems rather high, actually. According to the exit polls for the 2004 election, 54% self-identified as Protestant, 27% as Catholic, 3% as Jewish and 7% as some other religious faith; only 10% self-identified as “none.” And yeah, John Kerry won 67% of the “no religion” voters, but even amongst them, George Bush won 31%.
Further, 56% of the voters self-identified as attending church at least monthly, with another 28% saying they attend a few times a year. Only 15% said that they never attend church.
I can’t speak with much authority on how Americans in various groups vote, but I believe most of the Christians I know who share my views and vote in American elections vote Democrat.
So if they vote Democrat, and they probably won’t stop just because you insult their beliefs, why do I urge holding off? Well, assuming the rudeness argument doesn’t work, a willingness on your (collective) part to avoid insults reduces a barrier to outreach by Christians such as Jim Wallis to evangelicals George Bush has turned off, and who might come to vote the contradictions between the (actual) Republican agenda and Christian ethics.
Reactionary Republicans want to hold on to those voters. The more trouble they can make between you and the wavering evangelicals, the better it suits them. If someone like Hagee or Dobson screams that Amanda and you will go to hell, it would suit them just fine to have you respond by insulting the Christian faith.
By the way, MikeEss: I read the linked portion of the interview with Gary George (the hater). He never once tried to produce a religious justification. If I had to sum up his position, my precis would read: if you challenge my priviledge as a “white” straight man, I will use any means to beat you down, the more violent the better.
Now, I have no doubt that people who cloak thier bigotry in religion support him. But it makes a difference that he doesn’t appear claim any religious basis himself. For one thing, if he claimed religious sanction, we could educate him on the uncertainties (at the very least) in the passages he relies on. But since he seems determined not to give up priviledge, we can’t educate him out of it.
Mr Spragge wrote:
Except that’s pretty much an anecdote, not hard data. The exit polling data from the 2004 elections indicated that 59% of Protestants and 52% of Catholics voted for George Bush. John Kerry, on the other hand, did very well among Jews, and people with other religious affiliations, and no religious beliefs.
John Spragge -
Sorry, I don’t buy that “if you let too many people use the language of oppression it becomes meaningless” argument. First of all, are you an atheist? If not, why do you get to decide whether or not being an atheist puts you in a non-privileged situation in our society? I would argue that it’s a relatively small privilege dynamic in comparison to things like race, gender, sexuality, etc, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Acknowledging that existence does not minimize the effects of other oppressions just like acknowledging the frequently benign pop-culture oriented U.S. patriarchy does not minimize the effects of potentially more violent patriarchy elsewhere. If it does for you, then I’m sorry, your view is just lacking in nuance. Atheists are not “co-opting” the language of oppression from people who really deserve it, as you might believe everyone wants to do. Perhaps you should stop and think about what people on the other side of this privilege dynamic are telling you (i.e. Entomologista) before you get to decide whether or not it is real.
Like I said before, it becomes very clear that it exists when Christians, in their place of dominance, get totally up in arms about “mean atheists” — why can’t they just be nice? This is an extremely common tactic that is taken in privilege dynamic situations — angry feminists, poc, and such. It seems ridiculous from this side because as far as I’m concerned, atheists have a right to be reactionary like these other groups because society is insensitive to them. On a personal basis, are feminists mean to all men? No. So why do you assume that atheists are personally mean to all of those lovely people like you who happen to believe in god but would never damn them to hell?
Finally, in my mind, mocking phrases like “sky fairy” come about not because atheists are mean assholes who revel in mocking the religious, but because they are put on the defensive, CONSTANTLY. There are times when, when people find out you are atheist, they gape at you and sputter “but…but…why?” (I had this happen to me with a high school english teacher). In these instances, we often revert to some kind of analogy to explain ourselves (though we shouldn’t be forced to), most commonly, perhaps, “well, do you believe that there are fairies flittering around in the garden right now?” “me either, so why do you believe in *that* particular fairy?” Honestly, these discussions go nowhere and it’s stupid to expect a theist or an atheist to be able to understand eachother even with such an analogy, but atheists, by and large, revert to logical analogies when “I just don’t” isn’t enough for people, and an extremely logical way to present the argument is to compare god to another supernatural being that people don’t generally believe in (zeus, santa claus, fairies, etc). Clearly, this is insulting to you, but for us, it’s just the way to explain ourselves, and given the power dynamic, I do think you’re by and large *too sensitive* to that.
For me, it’s less that I want atheists to talk about how they totally respect religion and shit like some people are claiming, and more, “I don’t say shit about your atheism, so don’t say shit about my lack of atheism.” This post seemed, initially, like it wanted to open up at least a bit of conversation about the topic, but mostly what I’m getting here is, “Shut up, you do SO repress atheists!” with no interest in why some liberal believers might think the atheists could get their points across without all the Sky Fairy jibes.
I don’t mock atheists for not believing like I do. I don’t think they have no moral guide. I don’t sneer at their world view. I don’t even think they’re some sort of giant atheist hive mind. I just wish some atheists would give me the same courtesy. That said, I don’t think all atheists are obnoxious about it, and I can certainly understand wanting to lash out, especially given how fucking annoying the religious right is (I was raised Catholic and currently don’t belong to any organised religion, I’m practically an atheist to them anyway). I don’t even really get insulted at Sky Fairy, Beard in the Sky, or whatever else mocking. But it does get tiring when liberal atheists seems to think the world is divided into Liberal Atheists and Bible-thumping Evangicals.
To sum up: Non-atheists could grow a bit thicker skin, but atheists should bear in mind that painting all non-believers everywhere as crazy fundamentalist Christians probably makes the real point get lost somewhere.
Blair-
We’ll have to disagree on the application of privilege and opression rhetoric. But if you think that I take the position I do because “sky fairy” jokes bother me personally, disabuse yourself. Compared with the rough and tumble on my neck of the net, nothing you’ve said so far goes over a pin-prick. So don’t worry about “mean”.
I simply ask that you consider, before you refuse to give up posting comments such as “sky fairy” and “flying spaghetti monster”, that as citizens of a democracy which has 5% of the world’s population, 50%+ of the armaments, and politicians willing to bomb first and ask questions later, you have some serous responsibilities.
John Spragge -
I’m happy to agree to disagree. As for the rest of your point, I’ve thus far been ignoring that part of your posts but now I have to ask - what does any of that have to do with this discussion? Are the sky fairy jokes in any way related to Americans (wrongly) bombing the crap out of places? Did you get the idea that the people telling the sky fairy jokes are the people bombing? They’re not. Did someone on this thread assert that that kind of ridiculous military policy was a good idea and relate it to the topic? I can’t figure out how to relate it to this discussion at all so I can only assume you’re doing a “but this is so much more important, how can you talk about this” whine which I don’t have much sympathy for.
John Spragge is assuming that insulting religious voters will hurt democrats at the polls. He wants democrats to win, because the GOP bombs people. Ergo, don’t insult religious voters who might otherwise consider voting for democrats. It might be fun to spew venom at the fundies, but it buggers you at the polls every time.
I would further add that it’s not so much your direct targets who are turned off by your rhetoric. They won’t vote for you anyway. But it’s the moderate Catholic in St. Louis, or Methodist in suburban Philly, or Evangelical outside of Akron that is going to hear syke fairie or spaghetti monster or hot sticky sperm in the Virgin Mary and not vote for your candidate.
And then Spragge gets bombed by McCainiacs.
Blair–
Assuming the “sky fairy” jokes come from American citizens, the people who drop those bombs do so in your names. I would also say that sometimes, we do have a responsibility to leave petty things alone and concentrate on matters of greater importance, and I neither apologise for saying so, nor consider it a “whine”.
kevin–
Good analysis, and thank you.
I would add that I don’t personally draw a direct line between the bombing and the “sky fairy” jokes; my greatest concern here relates to attitude. As long as the politicians who represent you insist on their right to bomb, imprison or torture just about anyone, then you as voters will have a very serious responsibility. In my opinion, if you want to raise the question of why athiests, rather than religious people, should have to explain yourselves in a political context, then I think you have to take that into consideration.
kevin’s analysis makes sense but I have to disagree with the assumption, John Spragge. I mean Amanda’s whole point in this post is that more people can be won over by LESS religious pandering, not more. Since mainstream democrats in our country are constantly proving how religious they are, it’s pretty stupid to think that a) they represent atheists or that b) they are somehow screwing up their chance of getting elected by making sky fairy jokes. No one except people on the fringe makes such jokes, trust me. If they aren’t getting elected it is for a variety of other reasons, and maybe part of it is because they alienate too many secular people with religious pandering. I doubt that either of these (too much religion vs. not enough) is a significant reason why people turn away from the democratic party, but at least the former is somewhat supported since it’ll be a cold day in hell when a viable democrat running for president is an atheist.
Secondly, why engage in this conversation if all you can think about are more important things? You’re the one wasting time because I don’t think it’s petty. You don’t get to decide for other people what is a legitimate conversation to have. We could talk about “more important” things all day. In fact, we should probably stop talking about anything until we find a cure for AIDS or something. Seriously. You think this question must be raised when you talk about ANYTHING of “lesser importance”?
And finally, what makes you think all the “sky fairy” people are Americans? Would you be chastising me for not thinking about all the bombing politicians are doing in my name if I was Canadian? Surely, atheists exist outside the U.S. and feel similarly.
Blair —
Simple respect does not equal religious pandering.
If I read Amanda correctly, she seems to think sneering at religious belief will help push wavering believers into the atheirst column by , and she seems to further think that embracing atheism will make people (more) liberal and concerned with the justice issues behind feminism and progressive thought generally. I disagree with her on every count, but she at least has a coherent argument. My objection goes to the line of thought that asks why the atheists have the responsibility to play nice. To that I say that, in the context of American elections (which, after all, this post concerns), you have responsibilities that go beyond pleasing yourselves. When it comes to the stakes in this election for millions of people who don’t get a vote, doing something that may compromise the election chances of the Democrats “because it feels good” has real ethical problems.
Which gets us to your last point. Canadian politicians don’t claim the right to bomb whoever they feel like bombing. Indeed, they don’t even claim the right to help George Bush bomb anyone he feels like bombing, as we saw in the principled position Jean Chretian took on Iraq. Like it or not, the stakes in this election add up to real responsibilities for Americans.
John Spragge -
I think your reading of this post is totally wrong, although you may be reading Amanda correct generally, I really don’t think that’s the point she is making in this post. I still have no idea why you think atheists are the ones mucking up the Democrats’ chances at getting elected. It’s a far reach, I think, especially since I know a fair few atheists who tend towards libertarianism. There are a number of other conversations and divisions in the U.S. that are much more likely to come into play than “sky fairy jokes.” Racism, sexism, Hillary vs. Obama, gay marriage, the list goes on and on. Do we have to also shut up about these things because it might mean a Republican gets elected? No… you don’t get to tell me what to care about just because it’s an election year. As long as I am not being an asshole to religious people and thus driving them away from the democratic party (????) I am not at fault. Mainstream democrats are not at fault either, because yes, they DO have to pander by talking about how religious they are and going to churches. This goes beyond simple respect, because no one running for president who wants a shot at it can say they are an atheist. If they are, in fact, atheist deep down, then they are pandering. Simple respect would be “I’m an atheist, but I respect the rights of the people to be religious.” This may shock you, but this is what most atheists think. However, this is not a publicly acceptable statement for a politician running for president. Period.
And no kidding Canadian politicians don’t do that. That was my point. Your posts have been a dismissal of all atheists, not just American ones. Obviously, the context of this post is the U.S. election, but you have spent your time here denying that there’s a privilege dynamic with religious belief and then saying that atheists have to shut up because they might screw up the election, but you never specified American atheists. If I move out of this country can I make all my points? Because it seems like you have dismissed them out of hand, not just because of the extremely minute possibility that me making them will cause a bombing.