Your Thoughts Exactly: The Atheist Rights Movement

Monday, October 10, 2005

 

The Atheist Rights Movement

Because at YTE we're all about fulfilling our reader's desires, I'm fielding yet another request from the audience to write about atheists' rights. Perhaps I should capitalize that- that'll make it more important- Atheists' Rights!

First, what is meant by atheist rights? Simply put, atheist rights are the freedom to choose any religion and not have it be used against you. It's a simple definition of equality, similar to those of the civil rights movement in the 20th century (I just like writing that, it sounds historical) and of the gay rights movement now. In that sense they are the same- just as minorities should not be denied rights on the basis of their skin color and gays on the basis of the sexuality, atheists should not be treated differently on the basis of their nonbelief in God. There are a few out-and-out anti-atheist laws on the books- I think Texas doesn't allow atheists to run for office. Those obviously have to be struck down. Other subtle things, too- like kids shouldn't be subjected to prayer in schools, creationism. And the Ten Commandments doesn't really belong in government offices, despite the universality of it. There are other things too... if you can think of any, go ahead and comment on them.

But it's not just simply religious freedom that we're after here. In mainstream America, the attitude has mainly been that- "We don't care what religion you choose as long as you pick one." It's the kind of attitude that had a FEMA spokeswoman saying "A prayer is not necessarily religious. Everybody prays". (which the article points out, offends both atheists and religious people. Nice job.) And it's the kind of attitude that put the words 'under God' into the pledge of allegiance; and that lets Bush Sr. say things like- "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

But we can't, as atheists, pretend that this fight is the same as the ones that will come before it. And I say 'will come', because it isn't our time yet. In a time when intelligent design is still on the debate table, and gay rights are still being questioned, we can't possibly think the US, or most of the world, (though I hear the Czech Republic is nonreligious), is ready to let godless heathens in as equals. It's why we as atheists, and as human beings, should be concerned about things like gay rights even though we may not be directly affected by them. And it's why people who were involved in the Civil Rights Movement should be able to see that this is all just more bigotry. But it isn't that simple. While there are parallels, there are differences too.

The gay rights opposition points to the Bible as its fallback position. Nowhere in the Bible does it say we should disrespect blacks or hispanics. But it does point out that homosexuality is a sin, and that's good enough for them. The Bible is the end of the argument. And, they add, it's not like we are locking them up and punishing them- all we are doing is 'preserving the sanctity of marriage'. So it's easy to rationalize denying gay marriage. But just becaues you're violating a small portion of someone's rights doesn't make it OK. And that's the same fight that atheists will have to fight later on, because we aren't being actively oppressed like the blacks were in the 1950s.

But even gay marriage is a rallying point for both gays and right-wingers- it allows them to fight over something. That isn't something atheists will necessarily get. It's hard to fight against invisible ceilings. And in that regard, I believe that the atheist fight will mirror the feminist fight still going on right now. In large part, there are few barriers to women's rights in the US- women are in the Senate, House, CEOs of major corporations, etc. But there still exists an undercurrent of resistance to the ideal of full equality for women. It's why women still only get paid something like 76 cents on the dollar compared to a man. It's why there isn't a closer to 50-50 split in Congress, and it's why female executives can't get promoted at points. I think atheists will run up against the same type of resistance. There's no law that says an atheist can't be President- but nobody sane would bet on that anytime soon.

Lastly, there's an issue of fairness. It could never be argued by a modern person that minorities or women deserved to be discriminated against. But that very argument will be posed against atheists. In fact, they will put forth the argument that discriminating on the basis of belief is the only fair test- that they are judging what's on the inside, not what is superficial. It's an argument put up only lightly in the gay rights movement, because most agree that people cannot choose their sexuality. Only the really right wing condemns the gay rights movement simply because they are gay. There will most likely be a much larger condemnation of atheists for being atheist.

So we're facing a few fronts to fight against, and a lot of history lessons as well. The marginalization of our cause, because we aren't really denied much in the way of rights, mirrors the gay rights movement. And so does their fight against the Bible, because nonbelief is the greatest sin of all. The invisibility of this cause mirrors the current feminist movement, where there isn't necessarily a good issue to rally around. We demand that an atheist has the right to the presidency! The opposition will say; 'Sure- put an atheist candidate out there. Good luck.'

So in many ways we'll be fighting the same old fight- that of equality against an oppressive majority. But in a lot of other ways there will be new challenges, some that are still going on today. Perhaps we can learn from what is going on with civil rights now to help us later. But one thing is certain- it will be a fight. Because the one thing we do know from history is that they aren't going to give us these rights because they recognize their own bigotry. No, they'll say- atheists are different. And maybe we are, but we'll at least be ready.

Comments:
right on cue. perhaps its worse than you think . . . http://slate.msn.com/id/2127821/
 
Maybe you all need to use the same tactics as minorities and homosexuals. I'm pretty sure Atheists could win elections on local scales. And maybe Atheists with positive qualities need to be portrayed more in popular media.

But I agree with you that it is probably difficult to fight when there really hasn't been much injustice and/or suffering.

But I also can understand why someone would be put off by an atheist because it is difficult to know what they stand for. There is no Atheist code. Maybe another solution would be to start a group of atheists similar to a religion that does not profess any belief in a deity but whose members do profess to follow a moral code of some sort.

Smoovalot
 
when you find out someone's religion, do you assume certain moral codes? and are they different if you hear someone is catholic or protestant or jewish? i think the public is comforted that a person has a religion as long as it is a white one. but i don't think most people assume specifics of a moral code beyond the simple fact that there is some religious background to the person. do people assume tom delay has the same moral code as martin luther king jr. because they are both of the faith? or rick santorum? and can you assume that a person who says they are of religion X actually conform the the moral code of religion X?

and if you assume a moral code based on the text of the religion, is that really a good thing? there are some terrible things is religious texts. and they are thousands of years old - shouldn't our moral code be more highly evolved than that of our ancestors?
 
I think people do assume specifics of a moral code when a person claims to subscribe to the beliefs of a popular religion. Namely that of conformity to the general beliefs of that religion.

People classify other people all the time and make assumptions based on those classifcations. Candidates (People in general) are always protrayed in very basic, black and white cliche'd descriptions (e.g. White Southern Farmboy Republican, Northeastern Aristocratic Democrat, etc). This is so people can get a general feel for the person without having to know their life story.

And that is the thing about Atheism. It is not a characteristic but rather a lack of one. It doesn't mean that you can't have morals but that nobody knows what they are. Think if I described a candidate as being from indeterminate U.S. location and indeterminite economic background, indeterminite party.

Isn't this one of the purposes of parties? So that people can know in general a certain candidates political beliefs? When I hear someone is a democrat I assume certain things about them and I see no reason why religion should be any different. If I hear someone is an independent, I don't know what to believe about his platform. And I'm certainly not going to do any work to find out. Same with atheism.

-Smoovalot
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
You're Pro-Life? WTF?
 
There are already enough classifications, though. I could be described as Asian, upper-class, suburban-raised, educated, liberal, pro-choice*, etc.

Basically, what I'm saying is that those are what really matter in political office. If you think about it, I think Bill Clinton was a pretty good president, although he was loose with his own personal morals. Conversely, I think George Bush is a better Christian, but I think he is a terrible president.

I think that for political office (which is the key issue here, since Atheists aren't discriminated in other places), political party is what really matters. It's why I'd vote for a scummy, sleazy Democrat over almost any Republican. And I think most people do that too- otherwise every christian democrat would have been calling for Clinton's head in light of his adultery. But they realize that moral code is not most important thing in a politician. And in terms of not adhering to a specific moral code- I don't think that's the real issue here. If they put up a Muslim or even Buddhist candidate for President, that person would be destroyed. Because people don't just want a moral code, they want someone with a familiar one.

And I think that's the real issue. We may have a female president soon, because people are comfortable with the idea of women in power. We may see a minority candidate too, because people are familiar with blacks and hispanics in politics now. I think that's the key here- that once people get used to Atheists/other religions in politics, they won't have a big problem with their rejection of the Bible.

*oops, typo
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?