The Atheist Blogroll

Following Matt’s example, for the sheer size of it I’m moving my listing of The Atheist Blogroll to its own page.

My reason for participating in The Atheist Blogroll is simple, although I’ll expound somewhat. It has become quite fashionable for Atheists to be labelled as “intolerant” and for a host of rather uncharitable and false characteristics and beliefs to be ascribed generally to Atheists as if “Atheist” were some great undifferentiated group. By “intolerant”, in particular I mean speaking above their station in respect to religion (no more so than theists discussing matters between religions) and being critical of sectarian political objectives that are placed squarely in public life (why should anyone abstain from criticism of anything that is thrust into public life?)

Sure, there are some genuinely intolerant Atheists who do hate religion and who have an axe to grind. Some may even be on The Atheist Blogroll. However, hate of religion is far from a universal position amongst Atheists. The only universal position is a disbelief in every God hypothesis we have ever encountered, and then not necessarily (or even often) a positive belief in a no-God hypothesis (there is a difference between the two and the burden of proof is different for both).

Genuine intolerance can not honestly or even remotely accurately be ascribed generally to atheists. Hate of religion is not only non-general, it isn’t even common amongst most Atheists. The haters are fringe dwellers of the Atheist population. They (the haters) were by-and-large unwelcome trolls back in the days of alt.atheism and for the most part amongst Atheist blogs, remain a largely at-best-tolerated interruption to meaningful discussion. Even if loud, they aren’t many.

Most often then, when a Theist complains about the general “intolerance” of Atheists, they at least can’t be considered credible. Too often however, this claim is made with dubious supporting evidence, such as the very common “Atheists getting the bible banned in US schools” meme, which is in no part true. More common though, it is just Atheists participating in public discussion where there is conflict with the political/sectarian goals of Theists that is used as evidence, which of course, isn’t evidence in and of itself.

The inability of the Theist majority to tyrannise a minority by dictating religious practice, is mis-characterised (by some but by no means all Theists) as a tyranny of the minority. In the mutated caricature of democracy held by these particular Theists, the majority should be free to deprive what liberties it wants from the minorities, without justification other than referral to religious dogma or cooked up pseudo-science.

It’s the same with gay marriage. Jim Wallace of the Australian Christian Lobby once actually told Australians that gay marriage oppresses Christians, as if the personal lives of any given gay couple has anything to do with the Australian Christian population as a whole. Let’s also not forget all the fraudulent rubbish about gay parenting as well!

Counter-measures against and corrections of laws and common practices that discriminated against blacks in the US (that continue to this day in less obvious ways) have been described as tyrannising the white majority. “Positive discrimination”, that pejorative term used to imply that somehow certain (particularly black) minorities get it better than others, has little to do with equality as is commonly misconceived (being born black in the US hardly advantages you, affirmative action not withstanding). Equality is really a separate issue to the “Positive discrimination” meme, and the more sensible critics of aspects of affirmative action would be wise not to conflate them.

It’s about absolute and unchecked power to a given majority. The power to tyrannise the vulnerable and the demonisation of the same vulnerables should they dare utter a criticism of the tyranny they are subjected to. It’s what George Pell (unintentionally) ironically calls “Normative Democracy”.

The most common objection to general Atheist behaviour is not about intolerance. It can’t be, for there isn’t sufficient intolerance to support such a claim. It is only disguised as such. The most common objection is that Atheists as participating in public discussion and voicing contrary opinion. It’s just most often dressed up as an objection to intolerance.

Atheists are just supposed to shut up.

So it is for the very reason that I show solidarity with other Atheists. Not because of anything common in our nature, for really we have little in common. I show solidarity with the others on the Atheist Blogroll because we have a common experience; being expected to back down and not argue our case when our liberty is deprived.

When Intelligent Design is put on a state school curriculum, there are those who expect us to shut up (or to stay shut up if we didn’t say anything). When teachers in a state school preference a particular denomination of a particular religion by leading prayer in class, atheists are expected to shut up. Theists of other denominations can speak up of course, and Atheists will be blamed for that as well (as they regularly are to this day).

When some sectarian group tells the state to deprive an outgroup of liberty, with no basis outside dogma and pseudo-science, we are to shut up. Gay atheists beware! This applies doubly to you!

When some sectarian pundit tries to generate animus against Atheists in the general population by telling fibs about us, or otherwise exploit outgroup biases to divisive ends, we are to be tolerant. We are to shut up.

When the not-so-occasional academic from the theology department of a state funded university comes out to tell the public that generally, we are Social Darwinists or moral egoists, which few of us actually are, shut up. It may be academic fraud, even state-funded, sectarian, academic fraud, but we aren’t to respond. That would be intolerant. Just shut up and play nice.

When the Pope or one of his appointees lies about Atheists, we aren’t to criticise them, for that would be intolerant. We aren’t to point out that lying about the general Atheist population is intolerant, for that would be intolerant of us. We are to be tolerant of intolerance, or at least that is what the intolerant are telling us.

Screw that. I don’t care how much I disagree with others on the roll. Undoubtedly, there are grounds for much disagreement. I can’t even endorse the content of these other blogs, at least not generally.

What I can do though, is commend them on not being silent. It is important that we resist the intolerance that we are all subjected to and not bow down to expectations of a silent respect for those who would or who do tyrannise us.

Spot the epistemology pun…

The Atheist Blogroll

Leave a Reply

Follow Me on Twitter

Search

Blog Directories

Blogroll

Human Dignity

Secular Links

Recent Comments

Recent Readers

Categories

The Vault

Words of Kindness

Amazon.com Wishlist

Causes

Buttons