Acrimony and tranquility: This is an atheist blog, but not a blog about atheism

I’ve had my fair share of blog wars and Internet acrimony and for some time, I’ve had an interest in exploring the ethics of facilitating debates where Internet discussion gets out of hand. “Blog war correspondence” so to speak.

Some of it has involved the participation of those with totalitarian leanings and dubious civic understanding, which is probably the most interesting aspect of the whole thing. The whole notion of directed, cult-like Internet bullying is reminiscent of many a group of 20th century fascists looking to harass people into line (which is why I coined the phrase “Internet Squadristi”).

The discussion of the behaviour of and the engagement with these types has been a semi-regular theme on this blog, but I’ve grown a bit tired of most of it. This blog has seen more flames than I think necessary and easily enough to disrupt any kind of tranquility that one may want to consider many of the finer aspects of life.

This should bring one to a realisation about this blog. The finer things in life haven’t got much in the way of coverage here. I’m all for critical analysis, critique and incredulity but I don’t think that being a critic is what has ticked people off so much. It’s because I critique the not-so-fine and the downright nasty.

The not-so-fine and the downright nasty tend to have not-so-fine and occasionally downright nasty followers who in turn tend to not like criticism. It is this that I think has brought more than this blog’s fair share of acrimony.

The most prominent of the not-so-fine and the downright nasty things that I have criticised has been the erosion of the separation of church and state and religious pluralism for the political ends of defacto-theocracy and sectarian hegemony. This from the perspective of a secular atheist.

This has dominated my own commentary and attracted some of the worst attempts at discussion (and/or disruption to discussion). Personal attacks and false allegations have gone hand-in-hand with the just plain weird.

But it’s not just the peanut gallery response to the discussion of these contentious matters that can provide a disincentive to discussion. The very time expended can be a practical barrier to discussion of matters more fine.

I think it very important that the theocratic rantings of the likes of Pell and Hickey and the Australian Christian Lobby (who vastly overstate their representation of Australian Christendom) are countered, especially when they have all been able to gain special audience with politicians not afforded to many other (more deserving) concerns. But the time spent writing these matters has in no hypothetical way, cut into my time reading about other things such as the current Phoenix mission on Mars.

Before I started blogging in 2005, I used to be a regular follower of NASA missions (Cassini easily being my favourite of the last decade.) The defense of liberal, secular, plural democracy may be far more important than Cassini, but who in their right mind would see the work of the Cassini mission as being less fine than the theocratic, faux-democratic, double-talk gibberish about “normative democracy” uttered by George Pell. Or less fine than the “if non-Christians aren’t doing what we approve of in the privacy of their own homes, then they are oppressing Christians”-logic of the Australian Christian Lobby.

There are simply more interesting and rewarding things to discuss than the insane, authoritarian and politically avaricious screed of those who by virtue of their contempt for democracy, should be far more widely recognised in Democratic Australia as fringe lunatics. They are entitled to their (wrong headed) opinions, they are entitled to voice them but why are these people being taken seriously (our own PM is guilty of this – his recognition of the likes of the un-democratic Danny Naliah is disproportionate considering those representing considerably more broadly held secular, plural values don’t get the same)?

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, Thomas Jefferson told us. But I want a break! There are other things to discuss and other people who have dodged their shift on the guard for too long! Arrrrggh!

(For those wondering if I’m actually angry while writing this, please consider the wailing and gnashing of teeth to be comical, while not detracting from how serious I consider what I am writing. Humor is a valid stress management tool!)

Of course, these particular threats to democracy have a religious nature, which naturally positions me, an atheist, in a rather exaggerated, counter-position. I’ve got the big red-A of the out-campaign branding me as an atheist and a page dedicated to the atheist blog roll. I’m pretty sure that if only (and I’m really quite sure about the “only” part) in as far as this antagonist positioning goes, I’d be happier in my criticism of the anti-secular if I was a theist.

Indeed, this is probably a source of conflict for atheists, more noticeably so in the US. Progressive Christian advocates of religious pluralism in the US, while not being immune to the nastiness of their totalitarian opponents (and indeed copping special kinds of abuse set out for “traitors” of the faith) in general enjoy less abuse than their atheist ilk. They receive more respect and more trust directly as a result of their theism.

This does have pragmatic applications; the activist that can reach and activate the most voters is a sensible choice for a leader. But…

In a properly functioning pluralistic democracy, the very theism that garners this extra respect, would entitle them to no such social advantage. In as far as respect for pluralist activism is concerned, being religious isn’t something that can earn you anything. Not unless you presuppose that a sacrifice is being made in that pluralism erodes or is a threat to an entitlement of the church, an assumption which betrays motives not at all pluralist!

At least in as far as a career, it is easier to be a Christian civil libertarian than an atheist civil libertarian, which I have no doubt is a very bitter irony, especially for the disadvantaged.

It is an unwise religious civil libertarian that doesn’t take this in to account, and arguably an incompetent one if their dedication to pluralism is sincere (which if you entertain cynicism, perhaps it may not be). IMHO, Jim Wallis would be wise to attend to this concern as I genuinely think that he is lacking in this respect (the specific competency, not necessarily the sincerity – although I have concerns about this as well).

His demonstrated aversion to secular atheists doesn’t bode well for his capacity to support pluralism the way a good leader should and would.

As happy as I may be to have it as easy as the secular-pluralist-theist in as far as conflict is concerned, I’m afraid it’s not an option for me. The nice outcomes of a belief don’t make me believe that the belief is substantiated. I still don’t think God exists.

Now I may have the various trappings of atheism on my blog and I’m outwardly an atheist (seriously, am I supposed to be in the closet about this?). Naturally, this blog is currently atheist in nature and looks to be for the foreseeable future. But atheism isn’t the only aspect of my, or this blog’s nature nor is this blog about atheism.

My writing about attacks on or threats to secular democracy, while from the perspective of an atheist, don’t actually make much of the status of the existence of God. You don’t see me saying “the state shouldn’t do this because God isn’t real”. My arguments stem from magistrature, liberty and accountability of government (the latter necessarily requiring substantiation for justification of policy, which some religiously inspired proposals have profound difficulty with – whatever you make of God’s existence, He’s not likely to turn up at the summons of the senate!)

The angry atheist and the angry atheist blog that they write, is very often just a caricature. A work of fiction. Any resemblance to bloggers living or dead is entirely coincidental. Attempts to draw fatuous resemblance is resented only marginally more than any coincidental resemblance. The former mendacious and the latter unfortunate.

Unfortunate is the right word I think. Atheism at its best, isn’t a philosophy but rather a very simple position to a very simple question; “do you believe in a God, any theological God?” – The answer is no. There isn’t much you can write on the topic without going off topic. Not that some of these other topics aren’t interesting, it’s just that they aren’t atheism as such.

Now you can see how I’m being steered by circumstance, somewhat towards the caricature of an angry, atheist blogger with religion in his cross-hairs.

My tone is lacking somewhat, probably owing to my rough upbringing; I use language in my flights of black humor, tongue-in-cheekism, ribald prose and ironic musing that others reserve for when trying to provoke a fight. Them’s fighting words! Except they aren’t necessarily. Not for me anyway.

I suspect that’s the part that makes me look angry. That and the fact that I don’t invest much energy in the confection of feigned-respect and politeness.

The atheist trappings of this blog, primarily a result of a motivated solidarity with people who have had difficulty being out as atheists, helps disquise the fact that at its core, it is a blog about critical thinking on a range of topics, not atheism. As does my status as an atheist and my numerous conflicts with the nastier theists that have come here with an axe to grind (nor my laughing at the laughable for which I don’t apologise).

That attacks on secular, plural democracy have come by and large from the religious is of no surprise. Not exclusively though. I’m not happy about the secular party’s policy of wanting religious garb banned from students in public schools.

All the same, one can reason inductively that I have an axe to grind with religion based on the number of disagreements I have where the other party is a face of organised religion. I’d tell you to be more critical of your own ideas if you said this though. If we had an atheist Danny Naliah getting the attention of the PM, seeking to interfere with the personal lives of religious people where no harm could be demonstrated, I’d be criticising them as well.

My beef with organised religion is easily over-exaggerated.

There is of course the irony in all of this. Atheism, in addition to anti-theism is commonly associated with nihilism, both of which aren’t necessarily the case. While I don’t believe in the existence of a God, I’m not categorically against religion and indeed, it’s more the behaviour of the religious that concerns me rather than their ontology. If they want to harm others, I’ll be ticked off. If we can be friends, great!

But I’m pretty much the same with non-religious institutions as well. Take various clubs for example. Say, sporting clubs. If I take issue with sporting club X over the way women are regarded in their publications, and I personally don’t believe the claims made about joining sporting clubs, it doesn’t make me anti-sporting club.

Noam Chomsky had a nice bit to say about allegations of anti-Americanism being similar to allegations of anti-Sovietism, being essentially totalitarian in nature. The absurdity of which is highlighted by the reductios of meaningless terms like “anti-Norwayism”.

The irony comes in that it is usually the people making the allegations that atheists are necessarily nihilistic, anti-religion types. It is the likes of George Pell who make these allegations and it is often the likes of George Pell that also produce the kind of anti-democratic screed that I criticise.

If George Pell and his ilk learned to live and let live and respect liberal democracy, I’d have less to criticise. I’d have more time to write about the finer topics that I’d much rather be writing. The stuff I find more fulfilling. The positive!

It’s not entirely fair then, at least in as far as me and my blogging are concerned, that I am one amongst many subject to a generalised anti-religion, nihilistic caricature, when the people making the fatuous comparisons are helping to fuel the similarities! Irony indeed!

Pell, in as far as he doesn’t go overboard beyond the state’s large but finite carrying capacity for intolerance to democracy to the point of actual sedition (a charge about which I’m reludctant to give any enthusiasm), will be free to say what he wants of course. It’s the respect for his ideas not being matched by their merit that gets my goat (and I know that there is ample criticism – but still people are far to charitable out of respect for his office, soiled as it may recently be by his moral weakness).

So that’s the catch. Critical thinking (which is what this blog isn’t about) needn’t be about religion at all, and even when it does involve religion it doesn’t require contentious and acrimonious squabble. It doesn’t require stark black and white battle lines between religion and the non-religious, nor does it even require a vague line of any description!

Critical thinking can enjoy a far more tranquil environment and be more enjoyable for it. I think the picture of the Torrens in the title bar betrays my desire for a less hostile discourse, and it can continue to betray this desire. I don’t mind. It’s not something to be ashamed of, the desire for a bit of peace.

On the other hand, there are quite a few religious people positing dangerous and intolerant ideas that I think warrant serious critical analysis. If I were religious, people would draw entirely different battle lines when I criticise these ideas, with varying levels of severity depending on the respective denominations.

Being an atheist, or worse, cast as the caricature of an atheist, usually involves the maximum of acrimony, tension and an environment where people feel less incentive to participate. The battle lines are just that stark.

All I really want is a nice spot for a bit of a think and a chin-wag.

~ Bruce