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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.