Constructive advice for Atheist activism
Offline I am 31, and was raised in a Lutheran family (Missouri Synod---one of the most backwards, literalist branches of Lutheranism) in the Milwaukee, Wisconsin metro area. I started to question my upbringing around the age of 12, and abandoned it by the time that I was 14. In that time, I have interacted with many Atheists (when I use the term, I mean in the most broad sense, as in weak Atheism, wherein the individual merely lacks a belief in any deity), and have noticed a wide variety of political viewpoints. However, liberal/progressive viewpoints seemed to be the most prominent in Atheist circles, and also, the most associated with Atheism in the minds of the masses.
In my opinion, it would be wise for adherents of the New Atheism to emphasize the diversity of political opinions among Atheists. We should prominently display Atheists individuals with libertarian and conservative political views. No doubt many of Ron Paul's young supporters, who have experience in grass roots activism, are Atheists. Think of the huge potential there exists in the millions of adults in this country who do not vote because they are tired of the same two choices every year (e.g. paleoconservatives and libertarians who are fed up with the neocon-theocrat hijacking of the Republican party, as well as individuals whose political views are so unique that no candidate ever satisfies them).
With a big tent approach in the New Atheism, stereotypes of Atheists will be debunked. People will see that anyone can be an Atheist, and still have his or her niche with like-minded individuals. The data over the last several decades has shown a positive trend, that of increasing Atheism, but in my opinion, it has been too sluggish. With the Internet, and well-planned outreach, we can break this wide open. When I am an old man, I would love to live in a country, and a world, that is largely, if not wholly, free of Theism.
- Login to post comments
Great post, from experience I can say you hit the nail on the head. We typically don't highlight politics at all, so we don't offend one political party over another within the battle against theistic dogma. With that said the idea of actually proactively highlighting the various political opinions of atheists who show the same lack of religion is just as interesting and unifying of a concept.
Do you have examples of the sorts of marketing ideas or creative methods in which we should seek to disseminate information about the diversity of atheists as it pertains to political beliefs?
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Welcome!
As it happens, the RRS leans Libertarian in a general sense. Most of the administration is Libertarian, unless things have changed since I last looked. Prominent members who lean right as opposed to left include Jormungander, Answers In Gene Simmons, and EXC.
I am neither left nor right, but centrist. Both Conservatism and Liberalism have significant flaws in my eyes, but they both also have great ideas. So I incorporate both, into a Socialism that works for all.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Maybe starting with grassroots Internet tactics, like the creation of a youtube account called "Conservative Atheist" or "Libertarian Atheist" would be effective. There could be videos on those channels that highlight non-liberal Atheists as well as non-liberals like Barry Goldwater who have ridiculed the Religious Right. Maybe if Ron Paul runs again in 2012, we can co-opt someone in his campaign to start an "Atheists for Ron Paul" theme.
During public debates, if the "Atheists are all radical Leftists" is brought up, then the debater(s) on our side should mention prominent counterexamples.
There are lots of libertarian/free-market atheists from the Objectivist side of things. I think you'd be able to find a good deal of them by searching 'Objectivist' on YouTube. Personally, I think Objectivism is bunk, but they certainly have a lot of atheists. There are even atheists who used to be Objectivist, and then later gave up on Objectivism, but remain passionate atheists. One example that comes to mind is http://www.youtube.com/user/XOmniverse. I don't know which side of politics he swings these days, though. Still, the point remains that there are plenty out there.
You could also search for a group (or start your own) for conservatives on http://www.atheistnexus.org/
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
The opposing side to conservatism is progressivism, however. Not liberalism.
Where conservatism is the ideology of keeping the status quo, and adhering to tradition, progressivism is the ideology of evolving and improving to a better state through changes.
Liberalism is basically willingness to tolerate other's beliefs to pursue their own happiness, even if it differs from yours.
Libertarianism is /not/ to the left OR the right on the political spectrum. It is down, where authoritarianism is up.
I say this because many people mistake or generalize ideologies. Libertarianism has nothing to do with the right or conservatism.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
The political spectrum is larger and more diverse than many people assume. I'll provide two examples of libertarianism, that are paired with left ideologies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
This is something I really hope people take note of, because there is a large lack of understanding about politics from people that feel they are involved. I have had people tell me they are something, in the process labelling themselves to an ideology that is opposite to what they believe in. It isn't because they intend to, it is that they are misinformed. Many of the "talking heads" about politics don't help this, as they often have little knowledge regarding politics in the first place and misrepresent ideologies in the name of sensationalizing for ratings.
Many of the commentators would fail a political science 101 course. That isn't a good sign, when people listen to one and then pick up a misused word, only to repeat it in the same fashion.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
They should mean the same thing. Conservatism means exactly what I stated it does, that is what it has always been about. Now conservative parties may differ, as they pick up other talking points and issues. In addition, what is "tradition" from one person to the next, region to region, culture to culture, varies wildly.
Liberalism is often painted as the opposite of conservatism, but in truth the only group of conservatives that could really paint it as that is social conservatives of an authoritarian nature, who feel they have to impose their own sense of morality on others. In the same sense, in some countries social progressives of an authoritarian nature could be doing the same thing by trying to legislate morality on personal lives. I haven't seen it yet, but it is entirely possible. Usually however it seems to be people claiming a religious doctrine from years and years ago that they live by, and therefore want everyone else to live by. (No gay marriage, no sodomy, no whatever talking point of the day is that offends religion. Maybe blasphemy.) So that is usually referred to as conservative, as it is "tradition".
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
I use the terms as applied, not as defined. So they are opposites. As applied, Conservatism generally focus' on economic freedom, and limits Social freedom. Liberalism as applied is the opposite.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Liberalism has nothing to do with fiscal issues however. If you use the term "economic liberalism" you have laissez-faire as the definition. The only thing you could say it really hits as the opposite of is limited social freedom, or "social conservatism".
Fiscal conservatism has gained the definition of "reduced government spending" however there is no real term for the opposite to my knowledge, an ideology to support increased government spending.
Also- Thomathy, the chart I was referring to is a variant of the Nolan Chart. It is the standard to my knowledge by which modern political ideologies are charted.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
And when I've seen Canadian parties applied to it, it seems to fail. I hardly care. Politics is so much opinion that I barely give it more than a polite glance.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
According to most of the plots I've seen most Canadian parties seem fairly centrist.
As I don't know their viewpoints I can't really comment on validity of where they are plotted. I'm fairly ignorant of Canadian politics.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Here's politics for ya.
I despise the term 'New Atheists'.
I'm a socialist. The no money, mob rule, human cooperation, ideological segregation, kind of socialist.
including yours?
That reads like stereo. Your 'niche' is your association with like-minded individuals. We already do this here. We have everyone here. I think, can't prove it, there is even a NSP member on the forums, commonly called a neo-nazi.
Really? What have you done lately?
You're on the internet. However, it only does so much. People need topics for the internet and THAT requires real life to invade the subject matter.
I'd like to retire in an atheist world too.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
"Liberalism has nothing to do with fiscal issues however."
Not by definition, but every political party I've ever seen that calls itself Liberal does. In fact they must. Noone will vote for a party that doesn't have an economic strategy. Those strategies are always more social and less free than Conservative strategies.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Your definitions are wrong clockcat. Relatively high degree of social freedom and relatively low degree of economic freedom is liberal. The opposite of that is conservative. Few social and few economic freedoms is authoritarian. The opposite of that is libertarian. Conservative does not mean 'maintains status quo.' A conservative would want to change things in such a way as to decrease some of our social freedoms and increase some of our economic freedoms. Using your false definitions that would make conservatives progressive since they want to change America in order to (in their opinion) improve us.
The definition of 'liberal' and 'conservative' that I'm using was taught to me in a political science class that I took as an undergraduate at UC, Irvine. I passed an introductory polisci class and it contradicts your bullshit definitions. We even learned how the US uses the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' a bit oddly and that confusion can arise when Americans talk about politics with non-Americans. Numerous times you've brought those out and tried to argue that they are right in contradiction to their actual definitions and the way people were using them.
The reality of the matter is that some liberals don't like the word 'liberal.' This is a holdover from Reagan. He used 'liberal' as an insult and the negative connotation has partially stuck in American terminology. Talking heads on certain news stations and conservative politicians get to use that as a dirty word nowadays. So some liberals have been renaming themselves 'progressives' and pretending as though they want progress and change. They do want change only in the sense that they want liberal politics. And if this county was extremely liberal, then they would oppose change and try to keep things as they are in opposition to possible conservative changes. 'Progressive' is newspeak for 'liberal' with a lot of contrived lofty notions of progress and not playing right vs left politics in it. But, if you are into that: you are a doubleplusgood progressive unliberal unconservative.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
I don't despise the phrase "New Atheists," and even if I did, I would still use the term in lieu of the existence of a better phrase to refer to this movement. One reason that I don't despise the term is that Stenger, one of leading figures in this movement (and in my opinion, one of the most important, since he has done a lot of good work debunking the best argument that the Theists have), chose the title "The New Atheism" for one of his books. It is logical to pay attention when a de facto leader of a movement applies a certain phrase to that movement.
The act of repeating someone else's stereotype for the sake of a discussion does not constitute an adoption of that stereotype on one's own behalf.
If someone is unintelligent enough to assume that an Atheist of any particular rare political persuasion represents the political views of all Atheists, then that person is unlikely to be among the early "converts" (for lack of a better word) to Atheism in any event.
Aside from join this message board, I have debated Theists online and have talked to people in person. My right to state my opinion on the growth rate of Atheism is not contingent on my level of activism, especially since, up to relatively recently, I was not interested in actively spreading Atheism.
I agree that activist Atheists need to do more than Internet activism.
That would be very nice, but I would be very content with retiring in a world where Christianity and other garbage are significantly smaller.
The word is: Unapologetic
Stenger's not as hip as you think. He totally missed the boat on the internet's role in the atheist movement. See http://skeptigirl.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/apparently-victor-stenger-doesnt-get-it/ and http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/09/23/can-the-atheist-blogosphere-hold-a-candle-to-the-bestselling-atheist-authors/.
Personally, I see his use of 'new atheism' as a blunder. Stenger's along for the ride, but I don't consider him a leader, de facto or otherwise.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Progressivism is NOT new. It is also far from liberalism. Wow, you are so far wrong it is painful. The word is ALSO not new. It began it's use in the United States to my knowledge in the 19th century. It used around the world exactly as defined.
Liberalism is often mistaken for progressivism. You prove exactly why I was saying these things in the first place I only wanted to clarify that.
Misuse of terms is why people have a hard time with politics. Please understand that liberalism is NOT progressivism. You can be a liberal proHowessive, or a liberal conservative.
I love the word liberal. I am a firm believer in liberalism. I don't see why anyone would be against it. It has nothing to do with what many people in the states attribute to it though. I can use it elsewhere in the world and people often will understand the correct definition.
I'm sorry, but your definitions seem to only apply only to american politics in -practice-. Basically, you are defining things by both their misuse and by what is often seen tied to them in this country, which only makes it difficult to discuss politics with you.
You clearly don't understand the differences between two separate ideologies here. Are you sure you took a real political science course?
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Are you European clockcat? I have spoken to a European who claimed that 'liberal conservative' is a political affiliation in some European countries and that the term makes sense to them. If you are using non-American terminology, then maybe you are right for your part of the world. If you are an American and you really think that 'progressive' isn't the term that some liberals have taken on as a more positive way of saying they're a liberal, then you are wrong by our standards.
Your definitions contradict what I observe people say in every day speech and what I was taught in a university polisci class. I'm not proving you right, but I'm pretty sure of how wrong you are.
You find it odd that I use my country's political jargon? Should I be using some other country's jargon that contradicts my own and would seem wrong to members of my country?
That's the weird thing about this. It's crazy how incredibly, unbelievalby wrong you are. We are both extremely sure in eachother's profound wrongness. Oh well. We could avoid all of these terms by just writing out what we mean in more detail rather than using them. Like saying "he's a leftist who supports the status quo" rather than "he's a liberal conservative."
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
Do you understand that the words you are using have meanings? More ideologies may be bonded with them in certain locations, but it doesn't change the original meaning of the words. Conservatism is, has been, and always will be defined as an ideology to keep the status quo, to adhere to tradition. The reason conservatives are different around the world is because TRADITIONS ARE DIFFERENT AROUND THE WORLD. It doesn't mean that what you view as conservative traditions, defines conservatism. It only means that in that place it is correct. Why would you restrict yourself in an argument that way, when it is already defined?
As an example, conservatism says nothing about abortion. In one country conservatives may look at it in one light, while in another country conservatives may look at it in the opposing light.
I'm trying to explain this to you. I really don't want to teach a political science course here. I'm simply trying to help you understand that applying it based on your area is unnecessary, and while using the jargon may be fine with other random people to talk about -common- politics in your area, simplified, the moment you try and discuss beyond that it falls apart because there are ALREADY definitions for them that are not necessarily related to common politics in your region.
Basically, you are using terminology from the pop culture of politics in your region, which unnecessarily adds localized preferences of other ideologies added in, without mention of it, and therefore doesn't truly represent the terms as it is a mix of ideologies in one word. Political ideologies are a lot more diverse than you are giving credit. Noam Chomsky for example is a left libertarian, self described.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
As a [relatively] young man, I am cutting Stenger, a man in his seventies, some slack for doing a mediocre, or poor, job relating to young people. Maybe I am more tolerant of this because I've always gravitated towards older people to some extent (most of my friends are around my age, but I respect the wisdom and life experience of my elders, and let's face it, there is nothing like having sex with a woman twenty or so years older than myself
).
What if atheists did something like the pink ribbon for breast Cancer. Not necessarily the fundraiser part, but just something to raise the level of awareness. If a lot of people wore some kind of symbol in support of free though I think it would be effective.
Welcome to the board, Dogma Hater. BTW.
I think you'll gather from the responses that you won't find any such thing as 'dogma' other than the definition of atheism with regard to other labels.
There are a few people similar to your idea of de facto leaders that have denigrated the unapologetic atheists among us with the term 'New Atheists'.
We're here to be active against religious beliefs (and some other irrational precepts) some idealistic, some not. At least, that's why I'm here.
Are you still in Wisconsin or did you move away? I left Indiana behind 13 years ago along with the catholics in that place.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
I now live in Virginia.
Dawkins and Dennett are both pushing 70, and they don't make the same mistakes. I've got nothing against Stenger, honestly. I just don't particularly see him as a mover and a shaker. I'm glad he's on our side, and that he's writing books and whatnot, but that's about it. I haven't learned anything from him, and he doesn't come to mind when I'm trying to think of examples for anything, except maybe as 'yet another guy who writes books on atheism'.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!