The discussion over at Sandra Miller's post on atheists and politics reminded me of a story I was told by a volunteer I used to supervize.
Steven is a hard core liberal and an avowed atheist. He got a letter to the editor in the local paper every month or so, often about the separation of church and state. He volunteered for pro-choice causes. Strangely, his wife volunteered for an anti-abortion crisis pregnancy center and gave money to the right-to-life groups. An interesting relationship I suppose.
Steven would often talk about atheism. These were the days before I adopted the title of atheist myself. I preferred to go by the more vague and safe "agnostic.'
Steven told me about being drafted in the early fifties and serving in the Army in Korea. When they asked him what religion to put on his dog tags so that the Army would know which minister to send should he be injuried in battle and lay at death's door, he asked for it to say atheist. At the age of 19 he was confident of his atheism.
A superior got involved and told him he had to select a religion, not "atheist." He backed down and asked for it to be left blank. Then an even higher up got involved and told him he would be court-martialled if he didn't choose a religion.
Not wanting a court-martial verdict to marr his record for life, he told them to put "Protestant" on his dog tags.
When he was done with the story I remarked how ridiculous of a situation that was and amazement that the Army made such a big deal about it. I was impressed how he stood his ground.
"But," Steven responded, "I went along with it. I still regret it to this day that I didn't fight it out and let them court-martial me."
That's right, he still regretted not fighting it out over a insignificant symbol fifty years later.
On of the reasons that this strikes me is that atheists, while often hard-core, generally don't put up big fights in the case of a symbol. Well, I guess they do sometimes, but not nearly as much as the religiously inclined. Symbols do matter. They can reinforce or challenge the status quo. Atheists realize this. The religiously-inclined realize this too. But for some of the religiously-inclined, the fight over symbols becomes a duty straight from God. The Hebrew Scriptures are filled with cases of God's infatuation with symbols.
Today, when the clerk at the store says "Merry Christmas," athiests/agnostics/the irreligious/non-Christians/open-minded Christians may grumble to themselves if they notice at all. But for some reason if a clerk says "Happy Holidays" to a self-righteous Christian, the fate of Christendom is at stake and they must fight the Holy Battle, which in this case, amounts to snearing at the clerk and giving them a lecture if time allows.
It's a quandry atheists have. Most of us have strong moral codes, but are we going to fight tooth and nail every little thing? The religious fanatics do.
Many atheists are still in the closet. But many of us who are out in the open and outspoken are still too pragmantic and end up giving religious fanatics a free pass, whether it's in regards to what religion is listed on your dog tags or how you respond to certain religious holiday greetings.
I'm not suggesting that atheists start hollering at any person who uses the word "Christmas" in their presence; but we're going to have to strategically engage in the fight over symbols more than we are today.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Ken Honeywell
K.M. Breay
FierceFemmeSadhana
Katy B.
old new lefty
OEsheepdog
Salon.com
Comments
The Christians aren't sure how to respond.
(rated)
I couldn't make this one up.
Too bad there isn't an atheist symbol that could be an alternative to a cross or star of david or whatever. As a pantheist myself I like the circle or spiral as my personal symbol.
Many people at my small company had professed to pray for me over the years. I'd always tell them not to waste their time, but hell, it couldn't hurt, right?
I did, however, win the battle over a different "symbol". When the federal regualtors were due for inspection, I made them remove all four of the 8x10 glossies of George and Laura Bush from around the plant. Even they understood it wouldn't do to piss off the inspectors over that! I temporarily changed the picture of Ann Richards and me that was the background on my computer (and visible into the hallway) too, just to be safe ;-)
Arrrgghhhhhh!!!!!!
JulieZS, I guess there are symbols for atheists. Here's one. I can't say that it is that engaging. Something better must be out there.
My father helped me write a prepared statement for my hearing/inquisition/torquing over the coals. The prepared text showed his help in phrases like "moral development" and other dead giveaways. But in the hearing itself, Mr. Horace Rampsberger tried to put me on the defensive with the atheist/communist challenge question to beat all. Joe McC (the other McC) would have been proud.
Without skipping a beat, I asked him if he were not acting more like the Russian Communists himself, by imposing any religious anything as a condition of anything. I told him that his view sounded rather un-American. I may have been the last one, but I got the Star rank after all.
Ironically, a few years later, the signature on my draft card read, "Horace J. Rampsberger."
It is just that they had to fight the military godbags in court for their right to worship or not worship as they believe. And they won.
I don't think that I am affirming any Christian belief, merely acknowledging that the season is here.
How shallow is it to run from mere words?
There's a difference between saying "Merry Christmas" and being offended when hearing someone else say "Happy Holidays."
I'm an atheist who celebrates Christmas with much fanfare. Though, I generally say "Happy Holidays." I say it not even for ideological reasons, but it's how I grew up. As a kid we listened to that Bing Crosby standard, Happy Holidays, round the clock.
So, the use of the word "Christmas" is generally not of too much symbolic value. It's better to be inclusive and not support the notion that we all celebrate Christmas and the birth of the Lord Savior Jesus Christ.
They, being msotly Republican Texans, disliked Ann intensely. Funny thing though, once they learned from me that she had 4 sucessful adult children and a passel of grandchildren she caught a little bit of a break in the level of nastiness in their comments about her. How could she have been their much-reviled governor yet they did not know she was such a family-values kind of gal??
One of my partner's wives was a head honcho in the Disocese pro-life program, and I dutifully (and respectfully) refrained from fanning those flames for a looong time there, but by the time I put the picture up, I'd had my fill of them.
That's why Sarah Palin bothers me so much. Her venomous species of Christianity would round us atheists up and put us in re-education camps, all the while feeling smugly self-righteous about it.
Can anyone name an atheist martyr [–noun
1. a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.
2. a person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause: a martyr to the cause of social justice. ]?
1. a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.
2. a person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause: a martyr to the cause of social justice. ]?"
I don't think you've been listening. Several atheists have pointed out that atheism IS NOT a religious belief, it is a dis-belief, so the first cited definition would be an impossibility.
I suspect that amongst the thousands burned as witches and heretics there must have been an atheist or two.
Personally, I think it's sad that either Atheism or Agnosticism are not counted as first class religions. It seems to confuse people that there is no one to pray to, as if the proper definition of a religion even implies prayer. In fact, though, I think the right way to speak about a religion is as a set of questions that we all must ask ourselves in life, and where the lives we lead are our essay question response. Some of us imagine that God will read our essay, some our fellow humans, some aliens, and so on. But that's a personal choice. Which leads me to my final point...
I wonder what the military would have done to Steven if he'd asked to write "Confidential" in the place of a religion. If they had given him a fuss, he wouldn't have had to be a Christian to quote the line "Pay unto Caesar what is due Caesar, and pay unto God what is due God." The military, playing the role of Caesar today, is not due an answer to that question. Where's "don't ask, don't tell" when you really need it?
I can understand why Steven "still regretted not fighting it out over a insignificant symbol fifty years later."
My point is not that atheists should declare a war on all religious symbols. We can still keep our heads inside so that we can live out our lives. But we do have to pull them out a little more than we are now. We need to tell the world that some of us don't believe in a divine power and you shouldn't assume that. We need to tell the world that atheists are people too and have moral codes. We need to tell the world they can have their religions, but they shouldn't cram it down our throats.
"...I think concern over religious symbols is warranted. Every advancement of these symbols into our collective societal psyche grants more power to the antiquated belief systems they represent. Having these symbols ever-present, lends itself to support of indoctrination, which is a primary recruitment tactic for religion."
Couldn't have said it better myself. That's why I love having comments.
Symbols are important. Mine is the chalice: to me, it means light or truth, but seeking it, not having it all locked up.
Great discussion.
From what you've said so far I'm not sure you aren't simply reacting to the religious symbols of today, and aren't simply involved in the usual ideological purge that comes with having a "cause." (It's not unlike what the Muslim faith brought to the Judeo/Christian theistic tradition.)
Creating one "movement" to counteract another doesn't seem to be to be any answer. You're clever to say it comes from "within" and that may be true for you today, but what about tomorrow? Is your position absolute? Why do you care so much about what anybody else thinks?
The mob has been killing each other in the name of their gods since the race began. You think that would stop if everybody was an athiest?
I hope you take these questions in the spirit with which they are intended, which is for the purpose in inquiry.
OK, ben, show me all the atheist and agnostic symbols we've created.
I must've been asleep when that part of the parade went by.
I'll assert (with about as much justification) that the majority of people who use that symbol in the U.S. are Christians.
You can order your own here: Evolve
I am very tempted at the moment by the t-rex model, but I fear it won't fit on my car.
I think Ben Sen is taking me too literally. I'm not proposing a war on symbols, that is, to drive out all symbolic representations in our society. Rather, sometimes symbolic actions do matter and atheists need to respond.
Using the example of Steven. As an atheist he had two options to deal with the dispute over being forced to put a religion on his dog tags. He could not worry about it because what does it really matter? He has no god to worry about foresaking. As an atheist, it's just a symbolic fight. It would be rational to not worry about it and just say "Protestant." Alternatively, he could resist, which amounts to a symbolic fight. Because symbols matter, it could be an opportunity to educate others (that there are patriotic atheists in the armed forces) and provide opportunity for other atheists facing that quandary in the future.
So what I'm trying to say here that there are worthy symbolic fights that atheists must take up, even though they don't have a god to push them to take the personal risks of court-martials or alienation in their communities.
I'm not saying that religious symbols are inherently bad. I'm not even saying that there's anything wrong with having one's faith put on their dog tags. I am saying that symbols and symbolic actions sometimes are utilized in the effort to erode the wall between church and state and that atheists need to resist, even when the issue is purely symbolic. (As opposed to some of the more actual erosions, like gov't funding of faith based entities.) I'm also trying to acknowledge that atheists taking up the good fight and standing up, need to be pragmatic versus crazed fervor. Yelling at someone for saying "Christmas" is stupid, hateful, and counterproductive. I know very few atheists that are that zealous though, but I know a lot of zealous Christians.
To summarize again. Religious symbols aren't inherently bad. It's all about context. When used to imply that we are a "Christian nation" versus a Christian majority nation, that's unhelpful. When used to force someone to label themselves as a member of a faith when they are not, that's wrong. When used to imply that the only source of a moral code is the Bible, that amounts to bigotry. When used to endorse the notion we are God's nation in the Pledge of Allegiance, that ignores the millions of Americans who are atheist, agnostic, or pantheist. These are all instances worthy of a fight even though it simply amounts to symbolism. I don't think you can take from that that I want to confiscate everyone's crosses.
It's interesting that you've used the phrase "in the closet", because the parallels are eerie. My next tattoo will be a small script letter "A" in bright crimson, as that is the logo of Richard Dawkins' "Out Campaign" (www.outcampaign.org). That should be quite the conversation starter. :)
Nonsense. If you believe that evolution and support of teaching it is strictly an atheist cause, you're even more myopic than I had imagined.
Evolution does not in any way equate to atheism, evangelical preachers to the contrary notwithstanding.
Religious symbols come from a deeper place than I think you know, or have indicated you know so far. There has been a lot of discussion on this due to Joseph Campbell, who totally changed the way religion is seen among the educated. I'm no more interested in organized atheism than any other "ism."
I'm not sure fighting "fire with fire" is the way to go either. Do you propose a "symbol" burning ritual--not unlike a book burning? How far do you want to go? What is the difference between proselytizing atheism and Mormonism?
As far as I am concerned, and I do not think I am alone in this, it's the proselytizing itself that is the problem. Isn't that basically what you are proposing? I'm tired of people hiding behind their various ideologies regardless of how good it sounds on paper.
Now, my focus on "symbolic fights" for atheists amounted to mostly the defensive type--not passively allow Christians to label them as Christians. I wasn't initially talking about active atheist proselytizing. But I don't see what the problem is there either.
I'm NOT anti-proselytizing. Mormans, atheists, anyone should proselytize all they want. It's a free marketplace of ideas! But there are appropriate ways. For instance, not using the government as a tool in effort to proselytize your faith and exclude others. That's all I'm saying.
The only point you make that I can discern is an actual response to what I'm writing is when you exclaim: "The part I don't like is that it sounds like you are trying to organize a movement, and I'm not big on movements--I've seen too many of them."
I wasn't thinking it as a movement, more as a plea to individual atheists, but I suppose it could be a movement. I share your skepticism of what movements can accomplish. Then again, it is through movements, goodq1
Last paragraph:
I wasn't thinking it as a movement, more as a plea to individual atheists, but I suppose it could be a movement. I share your skepticism of what movements can accomplish. Then again, it is through movements, that social change can occur. This is how both good and bad changes can occur. I don't know how else one would propose making any sort of change in our society without changing and moving people. That's what a movement is.
This is all complete gibberish to me. Can someone provide me with a translation of what Ben Sen is trying to say?
I can only say what I gathered from your post ST is the discrimination experienced by atheists in a religious-oriented world. I have known atheists who have been court ordered to attend AA meetings. They have protested against this, since one of the steps (although not requirements) of AA is to acknowledge a "Higher Power". They are not given the options of Smart Recovery or Rational Recovery or others that do not involve elements containing the need for any kind of religious belief, no matter how vague that may be. They, and I believe, rightly so, find this to be discriminatory.
What I personally took from what Ben Sen was saying, and quite frankly, parts of it was over my foggy afternoon head, was that ANYTHING, including atheism can become a legalistic movement that is just as capable as inflicting harm on people, just as religion has.
I also got the sense that BS knows quite a bit about the rich history of symbols, one I certainly don't have, and he was trying to impart the importance of being knowledgeable about this if you are going to have a discourse about them.
My overall sense was that both of you have maintained a wonderful sense of respect and civility, a trait I admire about each one of you.
I'd say the word is REdefine - the Founders did not define the United States as a Christian nation. And I don't care if the Christians are radical or benign - I don't want ANY religion interfering in the way we are governed. Our government should be agnostic - no opinion on the existence of God or no God.
Someone asked if any atheists have been martryred. Well, I would say that everyone dying in the Revolutionary War was dying for the cause of an agnostic government.
For some people, it's a very important religious holiday. They keep Christmas in their way and I'll keep it in mine. Just like Scrooge says in a Christmas Carol, but my way is a lot better than his was.
I always chuckle when the O'Reilly and crew get all excised about stores clerks saying "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas." I could never figure out why anyone who was ostensibly concerned about Christmas as a religious holiday would want to promote the association between Christmas and rampant consumerism that has mostly overshadowed the religious aspect of the holiday in the modern day America.
I'll fight the nativity scene on public property. I can never understand why those kinds of issues even come up. Is it that much of a burden to put up nativity scenes on private property with private funds?
But I really don't see point about grumbling about "Merry Christmas" That seems a little Scrooge like to me.
[quote]
The mob has been killing each other in the name of their gods since the race began. You think that would stop if everybody was an athiest?
[/quote]
Umm... by definition, yes? This is a terribly silly argument. Regarding the conversation (?) above between ST and BenSen, I also felt that Ben rather missed the point of the OP. I also felt like I was reading two separate conversations for the most part.
The only secular 'symbol' that Ben Sen mentioned was the mandala, which, I would argue, is much less a symbol than it is a representation of something that cannot be adequately represented using a 2 dimensional medium in 3 dimensional space, but I may be picking nits here.
Atheists are not uniting behind a symbolism, are not trying to turn anything into another -ism at all. There is a movement afoot, to be sure. As Sandra pointed out, Atheists do see themselves as a voice of reason in society in general, and we are out there fighting to make sure that our culture is not
Last paragraph:
Atheists are not uniting behind a symbolism, are not trying to turn anything into another -ism at all. There is a movement afoot, to be sure. As Sandra pointed out, Atheists do see themselves as a voice of reason in society in general, and we are out there fighting to make sure that our culture is not (further) (re)created in the stylings of those who would do so for a god that we a) do not believe exists and b) do not want to have him have anything whatsoever to do with our social and political processes, in any case.
Ben may believe that atheists are simply "organizing themselves into a movement" to fill the void left by our non-participation in the movement of any other "-ism". I give (some) of us much more credit than that. There is a reason that we feel the way we do, and we have reason to militantly stand against religiosity. In some cases, that means taking a stand against the symbolism thereof. The fight over whether to put a religion on his dogtag may have been a purely symbolic fight to Steven at the time, but as I commented earlier, the symbol is the thing.
I'm not suggesting that atheists start hollering at any person who uses the word "Christmas" in their presence; but we're going to have to strategically engage in the fight over symbols more than we are today.
are you concerned over the use of the words "strategically engage", thinking that implies crating an organization? If so, I really think you're reading more into it than was intended.
While I don't have the powers to read (or cloud) the minds of men, I think that ST is suggesting that those of us atheists who don't particularly like to be included in with any kind of deity worship by default not waste our time getting upset with shop clerks who say "Merry Christmas" ( I just smile back) but concentrate on those things that really matter, like when I found out I was classified as a a Protestant by default.
BTW - the way I found out "atheist" wasn't a choice was when I went back to the CBPO to correct the error after the exercise and found out I couldn't. As not declaring would have kept me a Protestant, I went back to my childhood and chose Catholic. I noted that they didn't ask we what flavor, I guess they figured they were all alike.
It seems to me that in part, you are conflating "atheist" with "secularist." When you frame the conversation about resisting Christians in the state sphere, you're talking about religious symbolism against civic symbolism, and there's a robust secular line of thinking in that area.
When you frame the conversation in terms of private belief, that's an individualistic issue, and it is the general absence of symbols against a rich array of symbols. This is inherent to this argument - if you don't believe in God, there is no need for complex symbology, because there's no need for metaphysical shorthand. You can't have a symbol-based resistance to organized religion without symbols.
John says: "I think that ST is suggesting that those of us atheists who don't particularly like to be included in with any kind of deity worship by default not waste our time getting upset with shop clerks who say "Merry Christmas" ( I just smile back) but concentrate on those things that really matter, like when I found out I was classified as a a Protestant by default." Yes! Thank you.
Stacey asks: "is life modified better by unlimited possibilities or described by limitations?" Uh, why the dualism? Life has many limitations and many possibilities, but not unlimited. So I guess #2?
haggismold says: "you are conflating "atheist" with "secularist." Yes, the discussion kind of went that way. Originally my focus was on atheists as part of the point that we don't have the fear of God that some Christians utilize in fights over the place of religious symbolism in public life. Most people, at least here, seem to fall into the role of secularists who aren't atheists--so they've been kind of left out.
Ben Sen: " You know perfectly well what I'm saying, you just don't want to re-think your premise since you've made it clear you want to organize atheists into a movement and hadn't fully thought it through." It's presumptuous to say I know what you mean. I'm still a little confused by your conclusions--but I freely admit that I hadn't thought out a whole atheist movement. I was making a smaller point. Unlike Ben Sen, I'm not against the idea of creating movements for social change, but that wasn't my original agenda. Does this mean I shouldn't post on anything until I have a global solution? If so, it's going to take me a while to get it all figured out.
Parting note: I intend this to be my last comments on this post. Though perhaps I'll revisit with a related post someday. I've found that the subject of atheism can be very, very touchy and I appreciate the respectful tone throughout this discussion. I'll leave comments open for a bit, but will probably close off commenting within the next 24 hours.
Best of Festivus!
Without fully understanding the implications of what he was saying, I think OS made it clear he advocates for a movement among atheists, with whom he identifies, to distance themselves from conventional religious symbolism. You started this OS, and I don't think I'm an obscure writer. (Read a little Pierce, the American who invented pragmatism.)
My take is that you really don't understand what "symbolism" is, where it comes from, and what purpose it serves. From what you've written so far, you think it has something to do with Christian symbols, your personal demon, and "those who wish to repress my beliefs as an atheist." I don't want to take words out of your mouth, but that's how it sounds to me at this juncture.
The conversation still has not discussed what "symbolism" is, aside for OS's call to other atheists to "care about it." I don' t think the conversation is even close to the dialogue that was so incredibly forwarded by Campbell and many others in the last generation. He shows a complete disregard for it, if he has any idea of what has been going on. Does he know what has been brought to the table? Does he care--or does he wish to re-invent the wheel?
Are you with me OS? (You worried me in that last post.) You have yet to engage me on the subject of prostelitizing--and now seem to deny it is what you are trying to do. If you are going to make such proposals in the name of others you need to be able to back them up.
I'll close with something Haggismold brought up that is an excellent point: We need to take another look at what "secularism" really means, and the value it may or may not have from the culture. I want everybody to have the same right to choose. I want the society to "update" itself as to what those choices are i.e. athiest, Hindu, Wiccan, pugilist.) I want a "religious neutral" playing field. (That's my own term. I like it a lot.)
Good night sweet princes and princesses, and don't forget Ms. Calahash wherever you are.
Ben Sen,
"My take is that you really don't understand what "symbolism" is, where it comes from, and what purpose it serves. From what you've written so far, you think it has something to do with Christian symbols, your personal demon, and "those who wish to repress my beliefs as an atheist." I don't want to take words out of your mouth, but that's how it sounds to me at this juncture."
You have been taking words out of my mouth. I'm just trying to say atheists should occasionally take action in their cause (yes, I said 'cause') even if the fight isn't over lives, but symbolic actions.
Joseph Campbell is great, but this post isn't about the history of symbols and archetypes. I was making a simple point, not a treatise on religious symbols. As for referring to religious symbols as my demons, I don't know why you assume I have a hatred for religious symbols. I keep saying over and over again that I'm not hellbent to attack religious symbols, it's about the context of social messages that force us non-religious types into religious boxes. I don't care if there are crosses all over the place, just don't put one on me.
I don't mind people disagreeing with me. It's fun. But I admit I've been frustrated by the continuing misconstruing of what I've written. I've been told I'm advocating eliminating and burning all religious icons, that I'm a hypocrite for using a turtle icon at the same time that I say an atheist shouldn't be labeled a Protestant against his will (??), that I'm an absolutist seeking to create a movement that will ultimately kill in the name of no god, that by telling atheists to stand up for their own rights I'm proselytizing, that I'm "hiding behind" my ideology "regardless of how good it sounds on paper" (whatever that means), that I don't care about what Joseph Campbell wrote. You haven't drawn a line between what I've written and how you've come to these conclusions.
The only part that I kind of get what you're saying is suggesting that I'm for proselytizing. I don't think that was the implication of my original post, but I'll take the bait and admit that I don't really have a problem with proselytizing. That seems to be a sore point for Ben Sen. How about after a few days' breather I'll write up a new post about whether it is ethical/rational/useful for someone to "proselytize" their faith or lack there-of?
Maybe Open Salon can conjure up some sort of widget that lets you know when posts with a lot comment back and forth are happening.
I posted a comment on Ponticateimus Rex's blog a few weeks ago where I implied he did not know enough about his subject to blog about it, and that plenty of smarter people had been discussing the matter for many generations before he brought his genius to the table. I used a thesaurus to upgrade my diction a few notches, and made a few vague, abstract, possibly transcendental statements.
The next morning I woke up with a hangover, looked in horror at the fact that Open Salon was up on my PC, and felt like a douchebag when I read my comment.
Perhaps Mr. Sen has tipped back a bit of the absinthe. . ?
Regardless of the 'points' that may have been made back and forth, I just don't think that is how Open Salon should operate. I don't think we should imply that someone does not have a right to an opinion in our entirely anonymous environment. Likewise, I don't think someone should list their professional or academic achievements to buttress their arguments. Liberal bloggers be cooler than that.
Comments about the status of Turtle's head . . . poor form and not too witty.
Oh, and I keep getting dollar bills from the liquor store with the Gawd on the back crossed out with permanent marker. Perhaps the resistance movement is already active.
RP-You got to tell me which liquor store! I'm totally going there!
Closing comments now.