I was reading Pharyngula this weekend, when I read a post regarding the distortion of atheists’ goals by an English newspaper. I agree with Mr. Myer's argument that the goals of the atheist community are being skewed by the Telegraph. Atheists’ views are misrepresented all the time, so I can’t say I was surprised by it. But something did stand out to me.
A church lobbyist in the Telegraph’s story used the term “militant atheist”, 
and said that “militant atheists were attacking the children”. I’ve heard the term used before, but didn’t really think about it in depth until now. What exactly is a militant atheist? The word militant has a very strong; very negative connotation in today’s post 9/11, 3/11, 7/7, and Mumbai world. When someone says militant, what is the next thought in your head? I know for me it conjures up terrorist, extremist, guerrilla, and other less than desirable labels. The word is very much associated with violence and unrest. Naturally, this is done on purpose by the religious and the right to discredit and demonize atheists. Trying to define their opponents with a negative label, easily repeatable slogan or caricature has been their strategy for a long time. Anyone remember “tax and spend liberal”, or “flip flopper”? The fact is atheists aren’t militant in the sense we think about today, if anything they could stand to be more forceful in their rejection of faith (new atheism). What purpose do these negative labels serve? Well, from an academic stand point, it’s much easier to dismiss the militant atheist, or the Darwinist Dawkins, than it is to the Oxford Professor of Evolutionary Biology Dawkins.
Atheists and theists alike can agree the above mentioned terrorist attacks were all done by religious militants. Ever heard of 
an atheist terrorist attack? No. Large religious gatherings in the Muslim world often include burning effigies, anti-American chants, threats, and calls to violence against non-Muslims. Oh, and don't forget the staple riotous mob. In using the term militant atheist, apologists want to stir up images of Dawkins igniting a crowd with fiery, Palin-esque speeches. (Christians pal-around with Satan maybe?) How about Christopher Hitches leading a mass protest/riot with an alleged "militant atheist" fringe, burning churches and attacking believers? During the annual American Atheists Convention, did the atheist take to the streets? Did they Burn effigies of the Pope? Were there calls to harm and indeed murder theist? The fact is, you will never see anything like that. Atheist do not display the raw hostility and hatred that is found in many theist groups. Hopefully by now you can see the point I am driving at here. Just because a theist group can have moderates, and militants, doesn’t mean this structure applies to all ideological organizations. There are no militant, terrorist, or extremist atheists in the modern world. There are forceful opponents of theism, and non-violent movements. Theists cannot make the same claim, though I'm sure they do as they live their whole lives making ridiculous statements, see Crocoduck. Going door to door, attacking someones faith at their home, and trying to convert them, now that is militant. Has an atheist ever came knocking on a Saturday morning? Maybe we should, but the sad truth is, we would be likely to be violently assaulted at one time or another.
Moving along, another question comes up, 
what is wrong with being a forceful opponent of faith? If I were to tell any given believer that I belong to the Church of the Tooth Fairy, I’m sure they would have numerous criticisms. No doubt, they would at least snicker at my belief system once we've parted ways. As they well should, the idea of the tooth fairy as a deity is absurd. However, the tooth fairy is just as a legitimate deity as any other. Is pointing that out militant? Or is it simply stating what in the atheists’ view, ought to be obvious? Why is it that a theist’s questioning of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster somehow less militant than the followers of His Noodlyness questioning the existence of Yahweh, Allah, Baal, Apollo, or any other of the thousands of gods that have come and gone?
In the Theist/Atheist system, only one can be said to militant. To suggest otherwise is at best a misrepresentation, and at worst an outright lie.
Posts
6 comments:
nice post.
fundies love to throw around "militant atheist" to make us seem violent and intolerant. I must admit that we did have I guess what I would call militant atheist with communist regimes. Unfortunately these people suppressed the freedom of religion. But now atheist don't advocate this.
Atheist today don't advocate shutting up these people. We are just asking them to think! and look at the evidence.
Forceful Atheism is what we need in order to make people come out of the closet and dispel those negative myths out there about atheist. If wer're lazy about our beliefs then no one is going to take us seriously.
"Forceful Atheism is what we need in order to make people come out of the closet and dispel those negative myths out there about atheist. If wer're lazy about our beliefs then no one is going to take us seriously." I agree completely. The key is to legitimize atheism in the public eye, and unfortunately that can only be done by taking the debate to them.
I'm one of you, and I use the term for certain atheists. True, it doesn't apply to all atheists. My main beef is that you wrote this whole thing after giving "militant" an arbitrarily narrow definition. Straw man, much? Remember your logic!
Militant, to me (and I'm sure to others, as well) means "insistant". Maybe even a little zealous, dismissing things it doesn't like out of hand, without investigation. The militant brand of atheists insist that everyone share their view, not just asking to partake in freedom of belief/non-belief and ensuring that for everyone. The title of your post is actually not that far off from attitudes I have witnessed.
balance: I sometimes describe myself as a 'militant atheist' too, just for shock value, partly as a joke, or to express how convinced I am of my stance.
But when Theists use the term militant to describe us, I'll bet that they aren't really being so kind. When they say things like, 'Atheists are attacking our children', you really don't need to spend much time trying to deduce their best intentions.
To define militant as "insistent" gives us the ability to call people like car salesmen, IRS agents and women who don't want to be raped as militant. (The local news could read: "Militant Feminist In Confrontation Outside of Bar") It may be that you use the word to mean insistent, but it really doesn't fit with common usage. Furthermore, related as it is to the word "military", it is essentially inseparable from from connotations, if not denotations, of violence.
Militant to me means a lot more than insistant. You say "Militant, to me (and I'm sure to others, as well) means "insistant". Maybe even a little zealous, dismissing things it doesn't like out of hand, without investigation", this sounds more like a definition of arrogance than it does miiltant. I agree with Rene in that the context that 'militant' is used to describe atheist is clearly meant to be a negative one. Its apparent from other statements.
Thanks for reading!
Post a Comment