GPLindsey

A suggestion regarding Secular Activism. A 2001 study on religious attitudes estimated that some 14% of Americans could be classified as having "no religion." Of these, however, pure Atheists made up a much smaller fraction, less than 1 million people (I don't have the study title at my fingertips, but I can provide it in a subsequent post). The rest of the 14% was made up of people who labeled themselves as agnostics, freethinkers, humanists, secularists, or just "no religion." Full disclosure: I would have labeled myself an atheist if asked.

Nevertheless, I think this study points to the fact that "atheist" is a bitter word to most people, even those who essentially agree with the atheists among us (I recognize that agnostics and others in this group do not all agree with atheism, but surely many of the "no religion" people do). Thus, things like a "Godless March" on Washington or other efforts that focus just on atheism or godlessness have much less appeal. Efforts to promote "respect and tolerance for the Nonreligious," however, would have much greater appeal and could unite these various groups.

Also, religion is a set of both beliefs and practices. The religious right, when attacking those who are nonreligious, embrace poll numbers that say 90% of Americans "Believe in God," regardless of whether these Americans engage in religious practices. I would submit that there are scads of Americans out there who may believe in a God or higher being, yet don't engage in any systemic religious practices.

We can reach out to this middle group as well. If an effort to build "respect and tolerance for the Nonreligious" defines nonreligious as meaning those Americans who don't engage in any religious practices, then we could have appeal to those who believe in a God, yet don't want other peoples religious attitudes and practices shoved down their throats.

Secular activism should focus on the Nonreligious, not Godlessness!

Jewel

Your thread was posted 3 times. I deleted the other 2....

You bring up some interesting points. There are fewer of us that call ourselves atheists -- at least out loud. Personally, when I do participate in activism I participate to promote a more secular America. I do not care if religious people are religious.

that being said, people will never realize that us atheists are not kitten eating evil people unless we stand up and tell them who we are. Atheist does not have to be a dirty word.

dangin

Then, of course, there is something empowering about taking a slur that someone else calls you by, and making it your own label. Co-opting their insulting language and changing its meaning.

Nigga please.

Stop being such a fag.

You godless atheist.

These terms could all be offensive coming from a white, heterosexual christian. But a black person can say the first, a gay person can say the second, and I can say the third and they have different, nonderogatory meanings.

Words only hurt if you let them.

Tenek

I dunno. 'Nigger' and 'fag' at least have a history of derogatory meaning. 'Atheist' is more like the "black" or "homosexual" equivalent of the two. You could say 'heretic' or 'blasphemer', though, for atheists... probably the first.

dangin

Nigger and Fag also have historical or alternate meanings that are not so negative. Nigger's first meaning was "one from Nigeria" which really has no negative connotation at all. Fag can mean cigarette, or bundle of sticks or wood.

Words are symbols, and are interpreted differently based on context and the person interpreting them.

Which is my point. To some atheist is as dirty a word as there is.

Shake

I can see your point, but I'm sure that there will be some who would say that they are proud of their atheist label and might feel that calling themselves simply "nonreligious" would be somewhat dishonest.

Some of the "middle group," as you call them, might even consider themselves Xian, so calling them "nonreligious" would be inaccurate. They'd be more properly termed "nonpracticing." I had a friend in college who was a nonpracticing Jew, but I don't know if he'd have said he was nonreligious.

Also, one other small point: many atheists also consider themselves humanists, freethinkers, or even agnostic (I've seen it on IIDB, an agnostic atheist)! So, there may have been atheists in that group who chose instead to refer to themselves as one of these other labels.

Finally, I think some like the term 'Godless' for the shock value it has on theists! They might forget about you if you said you're nonreligious, but they'll definitely remember a Godless person!

GPLindsey

Since this forum is about activism, I was thinking in more political or strategic terms. For example, take the "Pro Choice" movement. The leaders in that group chose those words as a moniker to move the argument away from whether you recommend or promote abortion (if you are not anti-abortion, then you must be pro-abortion!). Many people who consider themselves pro-choice might not join the cause if the title was the "Pro Abortion" movement.

The first objective of secular activism should be to promote respect and tolerance for the nonreligious--to fight the view held by too many that to be nonreligious means you hate God or are incapable of ethical or moral behavior. We want to convince our fellow Americans that to choose not to be religious is just as much a matter of conscience as to choose to be religious, and the Founding Fathers wanted our rights protected just as much as everyone elses. We also want people to know how many prominent Americans were essentially nonreligious and made contributions to our society.

Consider one political issue: abstinence-only "wait till marriage" sex education. Under the "Nonreligious" banner, we could make the case that such an approach to education is effectively forcing a religious point of view on society--that sex outside of marriage is wrong. We could argue that, to the nonreligious, sex between consenting, unmarried adults is not "wrong" and is in fact practiced throughout society, and that teenagers should be taught how their bodies work and the various ways (and degrees of risk involved) to practice safe sex. I think atheists, agnostics, humanists, deists, nonpracticing Catholics, etc., could rally to a fight on this issue if it is characterized as opposing the forcing of religious practices on the nonreligious. However, if you pitch this fight as "Godless" or "atheist" Americans against abstinence sex education, then the number of allies will dwindle because it puts the focus on whether there is a God or not.

As an atheist, I'm not interested in converting millions to the cause just yet--I just want to say "Don't tread on me" to those who abuse us as a group. A strategic decision to use a less threatening term like "nonreligious" to get more people defending my rights is not a problem.

Jewel

The trouble is the ones who would like to deny us our constitutional rights are going to feel threatened by us no matter what we call ourselves. the very fact that we do not subscribe to their particular brand of religion makes them crazy. Those same people bad mouth liberal theists as well. Liberal theists are not threatened by us and most of them (the ones I've encountered anyway) would likely support our cause.

And besides that, the term nonreligious just sounds so noncommital to me. I'm an atheist. I am not mearly nonreligious -- I am godless.

beejay

"Religious" was replaced by "faith-based" in some political discussion, maybe to bypass objections many people have to government funding of religious groups (but "faith-based groups" sounds better?)

Maybe we should be "reason-based".

Mageth

Nigger's first meaning was "one from Nigeria" which really has no negative connotation at all

Umm, no. From Etymology Online:

nigger - 1786, earlier neger (1568, Scot. and northern England dialect), from Fr. nègre, from Sp. negro) [which is from the Latin niger ("black")].

It didn't first mean "one from Nigeria". It meant "one with "black" skin." The word used for one from Nigeria is "Nigerian"; it is now, and has been since that region was named "Nigeria" (when was that, anyway?). Although I'm sure many have and do use the derogatory N-word for people from that country, as they have for many others.