I've been thinking a lot about two words the last couple of days: "Atheist," and "Secular." For over a decade, there has been a virtually endless debate within the non-believing community over the value and utility of both of these words. Beginning with the sudden popularity of openly atheist treatises such as "The God Delusion" and "The End of Faith," one group or another has been trying to reinvent... whatever we're discussing... by changing its name. Freethinkers, humanists, brights, non-believers, non-theists, anti-theists, rationalists, materialists, agnostics -- the list of alternative terms for those of us who do not believe in deities just keeps getting longer. The ultimate question, of course, is whether or not any of these name-changes is effective. But I think before even asking that question, we must address a more basic concern: Effective to what end?
I believe there are two distinct areas in which Americans must consider the question of secularism and atheism:
Societal Discrimination
Atheists are the most openly reviled group in America. Newscasters, talk show hosts, politicians, and regular folks say things about atheists that they would never say about blacks, women, or even gays. When atheists have the gall to challenge the societal status quo, they are electronically lynched by thousands, sometimes tens of thousands of Americans, each of whom feels patriotic and proud to offer their own vituperation. (LINK) Recent polls show that simply by identifying as atheist, a political candidate would automatically lose one out of every two votes in America. (LINK) There are openly gay politicians. Jews, blacks, and women are all at least represented in most states and in Congress. By contrast, there is exactly one open non-theist in Congress, and he has chosen to distance himself from the label "atheist," instead referring to himself as a "Unitarian who doesn't believe in god."
So... down to brass tacks. Will abandoning the label "atheist" contribute to less hate and a better social life for you and me and several million of our philosophical comrades? I believe the answer is no.
To begin with, there's good evidence that it won't work, precisely because it's already been tried so many times. Not only has it not worked, it's worked in reverse. Check any atheist message board archives, and you're bound to find at least one lengthy excoriation of the "philosophical cowards" who don't have the stomach to call themselves atheists and support the movement.
More than that, it won't fool the Christians. Imagine someone of Richard Dawkins' caliber coming onto the Bill O'Reilly show and calling himself a "freethinker." How long would it take for Bill the Bully to ask for a yes or no answer to the label "atheist?" Once cornered, what good choice would the free-thinker have? If he says no, he is rightly called a liar. If he says yes, he is accused of being the worst kind of underhanded zealot, trying to conceal his true nature from the public while secretly eating baby kittens and plotting the overthrow of the free world.
No... "atheist" is the correct word for describing someone who doesn't believe in God. True, it is one of many accurate labels that can be applied, but it is the most appropriate when the subject is belief in God. I see no benefit in sugar coating this fact.
There is a bright side: History tells us that words can be "taken back." In the 1950s, it's fair to say that "Gays" and "Queers" and "Homosexuals" were as reviled, abused, and publicly vilified as atheists today. Actually, it's quite an understatement -- they were far more abused than we atheists. Today, however, all but the most bigoted Americans use these three words as more or less neutral descriptions of sexual orientation. The most appropriate and inclusive term we have is "LGBT" which includes every manner of sexual preference. It is treated with something approaching reverence in more liberal areas of the country. If gays can take their word back, I believe atheists can as well.
Politics and Political Activism
Politics is a different matter. To begin with, "atheism proper" does not address politics in any way. It is simply a statement of disbelief in gods. If I tell you that I'm an atheist, you have no idea what political party I might belong to. (Or indeed, if I participate in the political process at all!)
More importantly, an "atheist party" is an exclusionary party. In the name alone, it suggests that if you are not an atheist, you are not welcome. And political exclusion is what we atheists have been fighting so hard to eliminate.
"Secularism," on the other hand, is a specific description of a political platform. A secularist seeks to create a secular government. Our founding fathers were secularists, even though many were deists, some were Christian, and very few were atheists. Secular politics is something many Christians favor today. Outside of the 25% or so of Americans who identify as evangelicals, many Christians favor separation of church and state, and would prefer to settle their ecumenical debates within church walls.
Secularism is what America was founded upon. Our forefathers strove to separate the United States in both principle and practice from European Theocracy. To create freedom of religious practice as well as freedom from it, they embraced the utter neutrality of secularism. This concept is as valid and as noble as it ever was. If we as a government and a people returned to a proper sense of reverence for the idea, I believe America could return to the top of the free world. Those of us for whom the label "atheist" appropriately applies could stand beside Christians, Unitarians, Deists, Buddhists, and Muslims and praise the wisdom of our shared secular values.
I think we atheists do ourselves a disservice when we gloss over, obfuscate, or otherwise recoil from the fact that many, perhaps most, of our founding fathers were both theists/deists and secularists. This is one of our most powerful arguments for a secular America -- that it was NOT atheists who came up with the idea in the first place. It was Enlightenment era deists, Christians, and agnostics. This is not an idea exclusive to our little oppressed minority.
For my part, I would much rather belong to a diverse group of secularists than an exclusionary group of atheists. I would like to feel free to support a Christian candidate with the political values of John F Kennedy or Jimmy Carter or even Barack Obama (in order of dwindling enthusiasm). I am pessimistic about the political expediency of marginalizing not only open believers but practicing non-theists who are scared of the word "atheist."
So in the end, I must admit that I'm an atheist and proud of it. I have no intention of sugar-coating this label when I am asked whether I believe in gods. I do not. However, I must also admit that I am a secularist, and in this pursuit, I care not a whit about the private beliefs held by my political allies. My atheism, while it contributes to my secular values, is secondary at best. The wisdom of the Founding Fathers and their enlightenment values, the history of separation of church and state, and the terrifying collapse of American Society since the merging of the Religious Right with the Republican Party are enough to convince me of the value of secularism. In this regard, I will stand with anyone of any faith who cares to join me.
Comments