RSS
Home
Nonbelievers and the etiquette of name-calling
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
An actual loon, which as you can see looks nothing like
Kirk Cameron
In my post about this weekend's Family Guy episode in which Brian the dog reveals he's an atheist to his family, I noted that Brian's experience of marginalization and demonization was, though exaggerated for a satirical television show, resonant with the reality of life for atheists in America. I also called Kirk Cameron, who is also briefly lampooned on the show, a "loon."
For which, commenter Eric scolded me thusly:
I especially enjoy how the author cries about being persecuted for his beliefs while calling Kirk Cameron a loon out of the other side of his mouth. Listening to the Atheist community whine about how they are treated rings kind of hollow after reading internet message boards where they relentlessly attack christian beliefs. The whole thing makes me want to go back to church, but they're just saying the same stupid stuff about atheists.
Point taken. Indeed, I'm pretty weary of the mock-the-Christians genre of atheist blog posts myself (not that I am totally innocent of this). But is it as simple as that? If nonbelievers wish to be allowed into the mainstream and be taken seriously, does that mean we also have to take everyone else seriously? Yes and no, I think.
I suppose a point of differentiation might be between a kind of soft marginalization, in which people of differing beliefs or ideologies deride each other for those beliefs; and outright persecution or dehumanization, in which people of one set of beliefs actively work to disenfranchise or take rights away from those of another belief.
In the aforementioned Family Guy episode, Brian experiences both. He is derided by the theists in town -- Lois says being an atheist is "the worst thing" someone can be, he is labeled "worse than Hitler" on the evening news -- but he is also threatened with violence, and the town refuses to accept his business (he's a dog, so I'm guessing he already can't vote).
This is of course an extreme, literally cartoonish, fictional representation. But it's an expression of the dehumanization that atheists experience in real life. Atheists really are despised for the mere fact that they are nonbelievers. There really are laws barring atheists from serving in public office. Someone who was president during the past twenty years really did say that he thought atheists should not be considered citizens.
And I did call Kirk Cameron a loon. And yes, I called him a loon because I think his beliefs are, well, loony. He thinks mine are, too, though I don't know if he's ever used that word. What I haven't done is advocate to take his rights of citizenship away, I have not declared that he should not be allowed to participate in our political process, I have not called for violence against creationists. Nor has he done any of that to me.
But I also, as the commenter points out, lament how atheists are treated not just in law or in official civil rights language, but in everyday discourse. I often write about how atheists are demonized through derogatory language, name-calling, and stereotyping. So maybe that means I should keep that in mind when writing about someone who differs from my beliefs.
I think atheists and nonbelievers walk a very thin line here. We do want equal treatment. We don't want to outlaw the ridicule of atheists, but we would like to educate people so they no longer feel the desire to speak so ill of us. At the same time, we really are sure (or at least I am) that the theists -- particularly the fundamentalists -- are wrong. And we (or, again, I) feel doubly justified in saying so, because our contention does not come from faith and revelation, from myth and tradition, but from science and reason. Minus some subtleties here and there, we're as certain as we can be that the creationists are astoundingly incorrect. Legitimate evidence to the contrary would change our minds, of course, but none has ever emerged.
I will not always be nice about people I disagree with. But I can differentiate. Those who are hateful and hostile to nonbelievers, and those who glorify ignorance should be pointed at and laughed at (though never censored), and have their positions thoroughly and unapologetically trounced. Cameron himself is extremely and grotesquely dishonest in his presentation of the facts of evolution, but I suppose I can't know for certain whether that is sincere ignorance on his part or willful deception. Calling him a loon might be unjustified, or at least premature, and it might not be smart. Everyone, I think, deserves the benefit of the doubt (and the doubters). So perhaps it's not fair to call him a loon, or (hypothetically) malicious, deceptive, or stupid.
But I tell you, without apology, that he is wrong.
* * * *
Related posts:
- Acknowledged, not admired: Atheists' steep climb continues
- Brian the atheist dog on 'Family Guy' hits home for demonized nonbelievers
- A place for atheists, and atheists in their place: A response to 'simple arguments'
- Research on political intolerance "ominous" for atheist Americans
- Panic! There's an atheist over there!
Related Articles:
Comments
