I’ve been in situations where I’m the only atheist in an explicitly all-theist group, or the only male in an all-female group. I imagine it’s not unlike being the only minority in an all-white group. It’s slightly uncomfortable, you’re constantly aware that you are the exception, and sometimes the conversation turns to things you have no knowledge of or interest in, and you just wait through that period, maybe pick up some things on how the “other half” thinks.
I don’t see why a rationalist group has to be any different. A group can be explicitly atheist and still welcome theist members without sacrificing any integrity by kowtowing to their pet irrationality. Atheists need groups where they can be the majority for once as well. Let the theist feel slightly uncomfortable if they have to, we can still welcome them and enjoy their company.
Honestly, the whole “should we make accommodations for the religious” feels like the servile attitude ingrained into a subgroup by an entire lifetime of being taught that they are worth less than the ruling majority. The atheist population needs some sort of Pride movement already. I have a hard time imagining a gay group agonizing over whether or not they should be “accommodating” of their straight friends. Be welcoming, be nice, but don’t bend over backwards to make YOUR group be extra-pleasing to them. It doesn’t work, and it corrupts the movement by driving away those who find such groveling distasteful—which includes most people in the theistic camp. Really any people who value things like integrity and self-respect. The only people who will be drawn to a group that is displaying such submission are those you don’t want and will never win over anyway. Those who are intoxicated on privilege and entitlement.
Plus, you know, there’s the whole being objectively wrong part.
Gay groups in fact agonize over this all the time, or at least did twenty years ago, and the same divisions between what are sometimes called “nukers” and “appeasers” come up again and again and again.
I suspect the same is true of feminist groups, or at least was at one time.
I suspect it’s a universal pattern among activist groups, along with the use of words with high emotional indexes (“nuke,” “appease,” “servile,” “ruling,” “bend over backwards,” “corrupt,” “groveling,” etc.) when talking about it.
In my youth, the joke was “The only thing two Jews can agree on is what a third should donate to the Temple.” (Which is, admittedly, one of those things you can only get away with saying about your own tribe.)
Honestly, the whole “should we make accommodations for the religious” feels like the servile attitude ingrained into a subgroup by an entire lifetime of being taught that they are worth less than the ruling majority.
I’ve just read The Autobiography Of Malcolm X. Hoo boy, you really need people standing up and uncompromisingly just not taking this shit any more. Even if there are others being somewhat more accommodating.
I’ve been in situations where I’m the only atheist in an explicitly all-theist group, or the only male in an all-female group. I imagine it’s not unlike being the only minority in an all-white group. It’s slightly uncomfortable, you’re constantly aware that you are the exception, and sometimes the conversation turns to things you have no knowledge of or interest in, and you just wait through that period, maybe pick up some things on how the “other half” thinks.
I don’t see why a rationalist group has to be any different. A group can be explicitly atheist and still welcome theist members without sacrificing any integrity by kowtowing to their pet irrationality. Atheists need groups where they can be the majority for once as well. Let the theist feel slightly uncomfortable if they have to, we can still welcome them and enjoy their company.
Honestly, the whole “should we make accommodations for the religious” feels like the servile attitude ingrained into a subgroup by an entire lifetime of being taught that they are worth less than the ruling majority. The atheist population needs some sort of Pride movement already. I have a hard time imagining a gay group agonizing over whether or not they should be “accommodating” of their straight friends. Be welcoming, be nice, but don’t bend over backwards to make YOUR group be extra-pleasing to them. It doesn’t work, and it corrupts the movement by driving away those who find such groveling distasteful—which includes most people in the theistic camp. Really any people who value things like integrity and self-respect. The only people who will be drawn to a group that is displaying such submission are those you don’t want and will never win over anyway. Those who are intoxicated on privilege and entitlement.
Plus, you know, there’s the whole being objectively wrong part.
Gay groups in fact agonize over this all the time, or at least did twenty years ago, and the same divisions between what are sometimes called “nukers” and “appeasers” come up again and again and again.
I suspect the same is true of feminist groups, or at least was at one time.
I suspect it’s a universal pattern among activist groups, along with the use of words with high emotional indexes (“nuke,” “appease,” “servile,” “ruling,” “bend over backwards,” “corrupt,” “groveling,” etc.) when talking about it.
Yeah, it’s a very common pattern. It reminds me:
I’m twelve, reading Signs on the couch.
Me: “Mom, why’s it called ‘Feminisms at a Millenium’? Isn’t it supposed to be ‘feminism’?”
Mom: “Sweetie, feminists argue a lot. They don’t all agree on what feminism is.”
Me: “Humph. They’re being dumb.”
(chuckle)
In my youth, the joke was “The only thing two Jews can agree on is what a third should donate to the Temple.” (Which is, admittedly, one of those things you can only get away with saying about your own tribe.)
SHAZAM!
Am I good or what?
I’ve just read The Autobiography Of Malcolm X. Hoo boy, you really need people standing up and uncompromisingly just not taking this shit any more. Even if there are others being somewhat more accommodating.