#AtheismPlus - The Old New Atheism Plus

I was recently reminded that the producers of the Oklahoma Atheists Godcast coined the term “Atheism Plus” a couple years ago, but it meant something totally different back then than it means now. To us, it meant that you start with the idea that gods are made up, and then layer on whatever other values or goals or rituals that you happen to choose for yourself, as a freethinker, unburdened by dogma or hierarchy.

The point of our Atheism Plus series was to hear from atheists about what really drives them. We spoke with the leader of Oklahoma Atheists about Secular Humanism, talked with CJ about scientific skepticism and fighting medical quackery, interviewed a local LaVeyan Satanist, talked to the leader of the Norman Naturalists about the relationship of metaphysical naturalism to atheism, and conversed with a UU minister about how Unitarian Universalism welcomes unbelievers in their congregations. We also did an couple episodes on Communism, but it was more fitted to the book club format than the plus series, because we somehow ran into trouble finding an outspoken Communist in Oklahoma City. I'd also intended to interview an Objectivist, but he kept canceling the interview out of rational self-interest.

Many of these various worldviews are compatible with each other, some not at all, but they are all available paths to those who do not believe in any gods. It behooves us to be aware of them, if only because godless people are more apt to convert between them than revert back into the fold of theism. My point in bringing up this bit of history right now isn't to plug the podcast (now available on iTunes!) but rather to show that the phrase "Atheism Plus" has previously been construed in a broadly inclusivist sense, "atheism plus whatever you personally happen to believe and practice" but is now being used in a totally different way, to indicate "atheism plus whatever an elite few approve of doing and believing - and if you're not with us, you're against us." Call that what you will, but I will never call it freethought.

#AtheismPlus - Probable Pitfalls of Promoting Progressivism

Okay, so, yesterday's post about A+ wasn't exactly helpful constructive criticism, so I'll try to do better this time. I foresee three major pitfalls in attempting to implement A+, and the only question in my mind is whether these pitfalls will turn out to be roadblocks or merely stumbling blocks along the way.

Mission Dilution, Member Exclusion
There are some things that only atheists can to do for the larger culture, such as clarifying just how harmful and pervasive discrimination against unbelievers continues to be in our society. There are also some things that only atheists can do for each other, such as providing safe spaces for unbelievers to meet up and learn to support each other in the face of bigotry and hostility from the wider culture. Atheism+ seems to require local atheist groups to decide who does not yet have properly progressive political views and who retains too much of the sexism and homophobia with which they were raised, and then find some way to unwelcome them from the group. In extreme cases, such as harassment or intimidation, this rejection would be fully justified, but the risk here is that by creating ideological litmus tests we'd be leaving some out in the cold who are unreconstructed but not beyond repair. Every time this happens, it is a loss to both the group and the individual.

What are atheist membership organizations supposed to do with those who have only just recently thought their way out of theism, but haven't yet adopted (or necessarily even thought about) progressive views on issues of social injustice, sexism, racism, ableism, LGBT inequality, animal abuse, and so forth?  Shall we tell them, “Hey, good job thinking your way out of the theism box, that puts you in a good place to move forward, but until you manage to break free of all these other modes of traditional thinking on your own you aren’t welcome to join our new A+ movement. Here is a suggested reading list,” or something essentially like that? By creating and enforcing an ideological litmus test, local groups would end up rejecting those most in need of being exposed to a community of freethought and gaining the opportunity to think through all of these issues for themselves in dialogue with other freethinkers.

Deep Rifts and the Next Schism
The first pitfall is the possibility of losing our focus on those few issues unique to atheist activism, such as building a safe space for all atheists who are willing to interact civilly and respectfully with one another. The second pitfall is related but distinct: the possibility of creating schisms in our community over each of the new issues we're taking on, and conflicts over the prioritization and sorting thereof. Given the list of issues to hand we can safely expect some bickering over proposed additions to the list and how the list will ultimately be vetted and finalized. Possibly this will all take place on the FtB backchannel, or perhaps fights over issues will be out in the open. Maybe these debates will be cordial and rational, or maybe they will open up newer, deeper rifts between would-be comrades. If past is prologue, I'd expect it to turn nasty at some point. I've already seen more than bit of exclusionist and even eliminationist rhetoric on this topic, just imagine how nasty it will get if it's turned inward.

It's worth noting at this point that one of the most significant differences between earlier secular progressive movements (e.g. Humanism, Ethical Culture, some UU's) and the new A+ is that the former movements are generally older, less combative, more deliberative, and have a reams of tradition and canon to which they can refer in the event of doctrinal disputes. It remains to be seen whether the younger generation of atheist activists, with their famously combative approach to conflict resolution, will prove able to work through internal disputes effectively without any porcupine-related injuries.

Atheist Separatism
Possibly the most worrying aspect of the A+ movement is the suggestion or implication that as religious unbelievers we should consider ourselves capable of fighting against various social ills (e.g. racism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, animal abuse, classism, ageism, environmental degradation, lack of access to health care, and unjust drug laws) on our own without partnering with those who care deeply about those issues but don't self-identify as atheists. This might actually work in highly secular societies where the preponderance of progressive thinkers left religion years ago, but here in the U.S. many of the stalwart opponents of discrimination are progressive theists. If we want to affect social change, we need to partner with everyone who effectively supports some given cause, and the most effective groups fighting against various forms of discrimination avoid imposing litmus tests on religious belief or unbelief. Everyone is welcome to join them in their diverse struggles for a better world, whether motivated by religious injunctions to love your neighbor as yourself, or by a Humanistic impulse to do the same.

For a concrete example, consider Americans United for Separation of Church and State. They have been pushing back against systematized religious discrimination for decades, leveraging a broad coalition of liberal Protestants, Catholics, minority faiths, and freethinkers. Our local chapter is diverse in terms of age, gender, and religious belief, united in the mission of keeping the government out of the churches and vice-versa. Sure, most of the most active members are also unbelievers, but not all of them, and our most experienced members are pillars of the interfaith community. Working with them over the years has been a pleasure and an enlightening experience, and you'll find few places where atheists and theists are more apt to strike up friendships and demonstrate mutual respect. This is the model of interfaith/unfaith cooperation which I'd be personally willing to support, but it remains to be seen whether A+ can even begin to operate in this mode.

Conclusion
If the minds behind the A+ movement can manage to avoid losing focus on issues unique to atheism (showing people that gods aren't real and we aren't monsters for saying so), avoid booting people out of the movement who could well have been won over, avoid creating new rifts between people who ought to be allies, and remain open to teaming up with interfaith groups who are working against discrimination and for social justice, then I'll be profoundly impressed. For now, though, I remain agnostic as to whether they will ever demonstrate the interpersonal skills to build a diverse coalition of atheist activists into a true popular front.

#AtheismPlus - Plus!

I'm as excited as ever to see the community of unbelief engaging in yet another round of rebranding and rescoping itself. Not wanting to be left out in the cold, I've gazed deeply into my navel and come up with my own plan to build up the community using a bold new brand.

Since organized Atheists are the ones leading the charge, we'll put them at the front of the list.

Since atheism is essentially the result of skepticism applied to theism in particular, we'll put Skeptics next in line. Atheists are in an optimal position to learn how to apply critical thinking to all areas of life, having already worked through the more obvious fairy tales.

Lack of belief in god(s) also frees us up to reconceptualize our ethical framework from obeying divine dictates to reasoning for ourselves based on human needs and values. Hence, Secular Humanists must be included in the new big tent.

Finally, we should include the Anti-Theists, who go beyond passive unbelief to put themselves out there, doing the difficult and often thankless work of handing out red pills and freeing minds from the shackles of theistic dogma.

And, in line with the current thinking, we'll put a plus (+) sign at the end to indicate that we can add political causes on to our ever expanding big tent. So the final result will look like this:
Atheists, Skeptics, Secular Humanists, Anti-Theists, PLUS [selected political causes]

or just ASSHAT+ for short.

For SMS and Twitter purposes, it may be shortened even further: 3Þ+

Now, go forth and rebrand! Don't forget to stir up massive internet kerfuffles over which particular political causes are worthy of inclusion as we move forward and purge the non-progressives among from our ranks.

We've had our fill

I've avoided eating at Chick-fil-A for many years, not so much because they support various anti-gay programs, but because I've never cared for their food. I'm perfectly capable of making a terrible chicken sandwich at home and slathering on just enough mayo not to notice. That said, my personal boycott of Chick-fil-A is fairly meaningless, but my family's boycott of Chick-fil-A is another matter. Because my wife and I have raised our children with positive humanistic ethical values, they know it is wrong to treat gays as second class citizens or send them off to reeducation camps. Chick-fil-A has lost our patronage as a family.

Family, after all, is what this is all about. There are loving families like my own, who are willing to accept our LGBT friends and relatives. There are also hateful families who push them away, threaten them with torture by fire, and try to have them cured. There are the families formed by gay and lesbian couples, and there are the extended families formed by local LGBT communities. The hateful families would prefer for the loving families to give up on phrases such as 'family values' so that they can portray themselves as sole standard-bearers of what it means to be a good and proper family unit.

I'm not having that. My family has values, and our values are vastly better than those being demonstrated and marketed by the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and all the other right-wing bigotry-peddlers. We don't need a fearful enemy to bond us together as a family, all we need is our love for each other. As a family, we value tolerance, inclusivity, and joy rather than intolerance, exclusivity, and fear. We value our lesbian neighbors, and we think it's adorable that their daughter has a crush on our son. We value my sister-in-law and her partner just as we value my brother-in-law and his wife. We value real people who live and love rather than ancient books filled with death and hate.

As a family, we've had our fill of bigotry, homophobia, and Chick-Fil-A. If that's what you're serving, we won't be showing up.

Final thoughts on #FtBullies

Video: FtBullies and the Freethought Movement

#FtBullies — Too broad a brush?

Some of my favourite Twitter interlocutors have been pointing out that just by using the #FtBullies hash unironically, I'm somehow implying that all of Freethought Blogs has a serious bullying problem, and aligning myself with every single dipshit who attacks the FtB, however spitefully and irrationally. Such broad brush interpretations may be inevitable, because it is not possible to clearly disclaim the intended scope of a 10-character hashtag in less than 130 characters. I'd much rather we had converged on a hashtag which would be most readily interpreted as meaning "Can we please discuss specific abuses of power by the most widely read and respected leaders in the freethought movement, regardless of who they are and how they disseminate their ideas to the public" but even now I cannot think of what that hashtag could have been. Forced brevity can be a harsh mistress.

Let me be abundantly clear about this, most of #FtBloggers aren't #FtBullies, and no one over there has been acting like a bully most of the time. Everyone with power abuses it on occasion, often without meaning to do so, and those with massive audience privilege advantage can be unaware of how much harm they are doing when they publicly shame lower status members of the community or when they encourage or allow various forms of cyberbullying to run rampant in their comment threads.

It has to be noted that while some popular freethought bloggers allow and even encourage piling-on, abusive language, and other bullying tactics, others have taken on the onerous burden of actively preventing their own blogs from hosting that sort of content. Here are a few top-notch examples of bloggers who generally refuse to allow cyberbullies to hijack the discourse on their turf: Daniel Fincke, Kylie Sturgess, Richard Carrier, Greta Christina, Chris Hallquist. I do not read everyone else on the network, but I'm confident there are several others who also work hard to prevent substantive discourse from being sidelined by personal attacks, and I can only imagine what a timesuck that must be like for a high volume blog.

The essence of freethought is to be able to judge each proposition for itself, after looking at all sides of the argument. The argument over bullying in the freethought community is multifaceted and should never be oversimplified to the reactionary tribalism of us vs. them. However, if it came to that, I'd have to stand with any blogger who makes a good faith effort to avoid becoming a haven for hatred, regardless of their chosen affiliations or domain name.

This will be my last post on the subject of FtB. I've got other plans for August.