atheist tells of sitting
in her lunchroom at work and listening as conversation opened up
around her about religious differences. Her co-workers included
several kinds of Protestants, a Catholic, even a Jew. Sensing they
were in risky territory, they worked to find common ground. "At least
there aren’t any atheists around here," one woman said in a
warm, inclusive tone.
What’s a girl to do in a situation like that?
Should she out herself or just keep quiet? In his seminal book, Stigma:
Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, sociologist Erving
Goffman posed the perennial quandary of stigmatised persons: "To
display or not display; to tell or not to tell; to let on or not to
let on; to lie or not to lie; and in each case, to whom, how, when and
where" (p. 42).
Disclosure feels risky because it is. In 2008
Atheist Nexus gathered "coming out" stories from over 8,000 visitors
who described themselves as atheist, humanist, freethinker, agnostic,
sceptic and so forth. Some of the tales are painful to read. One woman
said: "I’ve had people literally, physically back away from me upon
hearing I am atheist. My children were told to run away from our evil
home." A man’s confession of lost faith almost cost his marriage: "My
wife told me that I’m caught in Satan’s grip and confessed that after
I de-converted, she considered leaving me. I believe the only reason
she didn’t is because she’s financially dependent on me." Elsewhere a
young woman tells of losing 34 Facebook friends when she announced her
lack of belief.
The consequences of anti-atheist stigma are public
as well as private. Most self-described atheists are acutely aware
of survey results showing that US atheists are less electable than
reviled minorities, including Muslims and gays. Six states (in the US)
still have laws on the books that ban non-believers from holding
public office. A Florida minister whose de-conversion recently made
national news said that job interviews were cancelled when prospective
employers found out.
In the minds of many believers, atheism is linked
with immorality and despite mounds of evidence to the contrary,
religious leaders reinforce this stereotype. I once attended a Palm
Sunday service at a popular Calvinist megachurch in Seattle. The
minister was determined that his congregation should believe the
resurrection of Christ to be a physical, historical event. He said:
"If the resurrection didn’t literally happen, there is no reason for
us to be here. If the resurrection didn’t literally happen, there are
parties to be had. There are women to be had. There are guns to shoot.
There are people to shoot." I found myself thinking: if the only thing
that stands between you and debauchery, lechery and violence is a
belief in the literal resurrection of Jesus, I’m really glad you
believe that. But what are you saying about the rest of us?!
Anti-atheist stereotypes work to bond believers
together in part because many Americans think that they have never met
an atheist. A stigmatised minority can be the nameless, faceless
"other" that people love to hate as long as members remain nameless
and faceless. But as the gay rights movement has shown, things get
more complicated – and attitudes start changing – when we realise we
are talking about our friends, beloved family members and co-workers.
Coming out has been such a powerful change agent for gays that
atheists (along with other faceless groups like Mormons and women who
have had abortions) are explicitly taking a page from the gay rights
movement and launching visibility campaigns.
That is easier than it sounds. Among atheist and
humanist leaders, passionate disagreements have erupted about what
kind of visibility will actually help advance acceptance and rights
for those who eschew supernaturalism.
As a social cause rather than just a life stance,
atheism was catapulted forward by 9/11 and the ascendancy of the
religious right. Cognitive scientist Sam Harris says that he began
writing The End of Faith the morning after seeing the trade
towers bombed with jet fuel and airline passengers. Biologist Richard
Dawkins, who had previously hosted a gracious series of televised
interviews exploring faith and non-faith, shifted tone and became a
patriarch of antitheistic activism. Journalist Christopher Hitchens
wrote his scathing indictment, God Is Not Great. Doubters
started coming out of the closet. I myself began publicly challenging
evangelical Christian teachings when George Bush pointed to heaven to
indicate where he had sought advice before invading Iraq.
It takes energy and guts to buck taboos and norms
as strong as those surrounding religion and so the first out the door
were antitheists who felt so strongly that they were willing to throw
themselves into the fray, do or die. The "New Atheists" attracted a
preponderance of young males who largely fit godless stereotypes: some
defiant, some nerdy, many hyperintellectual. All were, for one reason
or another, either impervious to rules protecting faith from criticism
or willing to pay a price for breaking those rules.
Some of these firebrands can be counted among
today’s leaders and many have kept an edge that is honed by the
seemingly relentless assaults on science and civil rights perpetrated
by Christian and Muslim fundamentalists. They remain fiercely defiant,
unapologetic about their scorn for religion, willing to use shock
tactics if that’s what it takes to break what they see as a terminal
religious stranglehold on society. Several years back, a group called
the Rational Response Squad promoted a "blasphemy challenge" urging
people to videotape themselves denying the holy spirit because one
Bible writer calls such blasphemy an unforgivable sin. In 2010 a
Seattle cartoonist launched "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day" after
learning about death threats against Trey Parker and Matt Stone for
depicting Muhammad in (the animated TV series) South Park. This
winter, American Atheists provoked quite an outcry with a billboard
that quoted a Bible verse: "Slaves Submit to Your Masters – Colossians
3:22".
The organisers of these irreverent events see them
as advancing values that they cherish deeply – perhaps one could say
values they hold sacred: freedom of thought, freedom of speech,
freedom of conscience and freedom from cruelty grounded in dogma or
superstition. And yet criticism of such in-your-face attacks on
religion has often come from people who share their goals. As the
atheist visibility movement has expanded, quieter, more diplomatic
leaders have emerged. Many of them insist that aggressive
confrontation does more harm than good – that atheists need to be
changing stereotypes, not reinforcing them and that there is such
a thing as bad publicity.
Biologist PZ Myers and Harvard Humanist chaplain
Greg Epstein have staked out two very different positions in the
naughty-or-nice controversy. Myers writes a popular blog, Pharyngula,
which evolved from a primary focus on biology and politics to include
broad-based uncensored anti-religious news and commentary. Myers
doesn’t suffer fools lightly and makes no bones about letting people
know that he finds most religion not only destructive but also stupid.
Epstein, by contrast, seeks to build ethical and spiritual community
that builds bridges between faith and non-faith. His Humanist
Community Project encourages humanists to develop the
traditional virtues of religion: communities built around shared
values and social service. Where Myers might rail against "faith in
faith", Epstein’s colleagues find common ground with open, inclusive
religious groups like the Interfaith Youth Core.
Blogger Greta Christina has said that atheists
should "let firebrands be firebrands and diplomats be diplomats". She
argues that both confrontational and collaborative tactics made the
gay rights movement stronger and will do the same for non-theism. But
what kind of confrontation? Ugly partisanship can backfire. For
example, Fred Phelps and Sean Harris give homophobia such a vile face
that they trigger disgust, pushing people in the opposite direction.
Some atheist activism may do the same.
Even reasonable confrontation tactics can backfire
– especially in the hands of a hostile journalist. Cathy Lynn Grossman
of USA Today attended the April Reason Rally in DC, a gathering
she described as "hell-bent on damning religion and mocking
beliefs". There she found plenty which, when taken out of context,
could be used to reinforce stereotypes. Her article headlined with a
quote from Richard Dawkins encouraging non-believers to "show
contempt" for baseless dogmas. It was accompanied by a picture of Jen
McCreight (of the Secular Student Alliance) cheerfully carrying a sign
that read: "Obama isn’t trying to destroy religion… I am". Other
speakers were depicted as ornery, offensive and more than a little
scary.
Ad campaigns by non-theist organisations reflect a
struggle to find messages that connect with either teetering believers
or closeted sceptics while avoiding backlash. In 2009 a London
publicity campaign went viral internationally with bus ads
proclaiming: "There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy
your life". A variety of billboard campaigns have followed, some more
provocative than others: "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary
Evidence"; "You Know It’s a Myth. Solstice is the Reason for the
Season"; "In the Beginning Man Created God"; "We are all Atheists
about Most Gods; Some of Us Just Go One God Further"; "Don’t Believe
in God? Join the Club". All have drawn protests or vandalism from
indignant theists.
It may be almost impossible to avoid causing
offence while challenging the religious status quo. Non-theist
organisations have traditionally ignored communities of colour
but African Americans for Humanism recently launched an outreach
campaign with the tag line: "Doubts about religion? You’re one of
many". Billboards and posters show faces of familiar black leaders as
well as ordinary group members. Coalition of Reason organiser, Alix
Jules of Dallas says that even this understated approach is plenty
controversial for two reasons: Almost 90 per cent of African Americans
express certainty about the existence of god and honouring religion is
seen as a matter of loyalty.
In Halifax, Nova Scotia, Humanist Canada wanted to
run a bus campaign that said, simply: "You Can Be Good Without God".
But the public bus agency refused the ads because they "could be too
controversial and upsetting to people". One reader commented: "I think
we should make atheist ads as innocent and non-confrontational as
possible. Not because we should avoid controversy but because we will
get the controversy no matter what we put up and the kinder and
gentler our message, the more obvious the hypocrisy of our critics.
I’m hard put to think of one more innocent than this one, though."
Humanist blogger and speaker James Croft, a
doctoral student of educational philosophy at Harvard, insists that it
can be done: "There are ways of conveying our values that are both
strong and civil, which avoid insults and (except in certain
cases) ridicule without giving one inch of ground on the battlefield
of our core values. All the evidence shows that this hybrid approach
is more effective than simply seeking to be likeable or relying on
confrontation alone."
In their effort to find the balance that Croft
calls "strong and civil", the Freedom From Religion Foundation has
moved towards more personal messages, ones that offer a glimpse into a
godless individual (or family) rather than some form of universal
claim. Since 2007, they have purchased billboard space
for messages, including "Imagine No Religion", "Beware of Dogma" and
"Praise Darwin: Evolve Beyond Belief". But their latest campaign, "Out
of the Closet", puts real names and faces together with simple
statements of values or disbelief: "Atheists work to make this life
heavenly," says Dr Stephen Uhl of Tucson on one sign. "Compassion is
my religion," says Olivia Chen, a Columbus student who appears on
another. A recent campaign in Clarksville, Tennessee, merely shows a
young woman identified as Grace beside the words: "This is what an
atheist looks like".
Atheist visibility is more than ad campaigns. In
2009 psychologist Dale McGowan, editor of Parenting Beyond Belief, launched
the Foundation Beyond Belief, a tool that lets the non-religious
visibly contribute to non-profits working on education, health, human
rights and the environment. Last year the foundation added a donation
category called "Challenge the Gap" that builds bridges by
contributing to the work of religious groups with shared values. Hemant
Mehta of the Friendly Atheist hosts news and commentary of
interest to young non-believers – absent the edge that characterises
an earlier generation of blogs. He brings more humour than anger when
he talks with secular student groups about outreach. Small local
groups are doing their part. Seattle Atheists dress as pirates and
carry a Flying Spaghetti Monster in summer parades. But they also
participate in food drives and blood drives. They hand out water
during an annual marathon. The aim is not only to make themselves more
visible but to show that they too are compassionate members of the
community of humankind.
As non-believers gain recognition as normal and
ethical members of society, I think we will find that confrontation
diminishes and bridge building grows. It is not only that both are
necessary but that one paves the way for the other. The Stonewall
riots and San Francisco drag scene laid the foundation for Feather Boa
Fathers and It Gets Better and pride parades that include local
businesses and church banners. Early feminists who stayed defiant even
when beaten and jailed made way for the apple-pie tactics of MomsRising
which has stencilled messages on onesies and delivered cookies to
congressmen to get their equal pay message across. In the words of
Ecclesiastes, "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every
purpose under the heaven." The questions are in each case, to whom,
how, when and where.
Greta Christina has estimated that atheist
visibility is about 35 years behind the gay rights movement. That
sounds close. We will have caught up when a majority of Americans know
they know a non-theist – and that friends, family members and fellow
citizens really can be good without god.