…and this is a 
Why do we need a secular America?
Category: Religion
Posted on: September 24, 2007 8:44 PM, by PZ Myers
The Atheist Alliance convention is coming up this weekend in Washington DC, and one of the things that they're planning to discuss is a generic atheist symbol. Among others, they want to consider the Affinity symbol that was proposed in this thread, oh so long ago (by the way: Godfrey Temple, email me so I can put you in touch with someone). Here's an unfortunate twist, though:
Ironic note on the poster of Atheist Symbols for the Atheist Alliance International convention: I went to have it made today, at a local shop which specializes in posters, worked happily with the designer -- and then several hours later got a call to come back and pick my stuff up, no poster. They are Christians and cannot do it. Went to another place, same thing. It was simply a poster with symbols to vote on -- but it was for atheists. And they are Christians. One person helpfully explained that they turned down the KKK too. So sorry. But they're Christians.
Well, I'm an atheist, and I've done work for churches. I can understand not making a donation. But throwing someone out of the print shop? Comparing them with the Ku Klux Klan? Oh. Wait. They're Christians.
Let's hear it for Office Max. They were the only ones who would print it. And deal with an atheist.
If Sastra would like to name the businesses and their addresses, I'll happily add them here and urge everyone to boycott the bigoted pissants.
Comments
If someone's religion doesn't allow them to do their job, they should look for another line of work. This kind of behaviour is just unprofessional.
I'm an atheist, secularist, skeptical public librarian. I have helped people find the Bible, The Secret, books on astrology, and books by James Dobson. However much I find these people's reading habits silly or distasteful, I support their civil liberties and act according to my professional code of ethics. On this matter, they happen to be in line with one another.
Posted by: False Prophet | September 24, 2007 9:00 PM
Better than a boycott; while business retain the right to refuse service, they do not retain the right to do so based on creed, color, etc.
I would say they've easily left themselves open to a lawsuit.
Posted by: James Stein | September 24, 2007 9:00 PM
Yes! all atheists should boycott businesses that refuse service to athei... um...
Posted by: efp | September 24, 2007 9:15 PM
If I recall, they can discriminate however they please as long as they don't take any government money or hold a license from government. Distasteful yes, illegal no.
I was looking for lodging recently and found that one of the inns I was considering offered a discount for patrons "engaged in full-time Christian ministry." (Rabbis? Not holy enough.) Looked like a nice place, but I passed it up.
Posted by: isles | September 24, 2007 9:22 PM
isles:
Please explain exactly when civil rights laws became null and void.
Posted by: mndean | September 24, 2007 9:27 PM
i think that it is a bad idea to try to make an "official" atheist symbol. it seems way to institutionalized
Posted by: name | September 24, 2007 9:28 PM
I live in Atlanta (metro) and the other day I was driving, and happened to pass a Pentecostal church. In the lot, I saw a standard redneck pickup, withtwo bumper sticker that set me giggling all day.
One one side: GOD BLESS GEORGE BUSH
On the other side: NUKE THEIR ASS, TAKE THE GAS
My irony meter is still in the shop...
Posted by: Sergeant Zim | September 24, 2007 9:40 PM
i think its a good idea: a symbol that unites us all.
Posted by: Skeptic4u | September 24, 2007 9:42 PM
Hey wasn't there a suggestion in that thread of a stick man and then a suggestion of a simple circle, and then Caledonian suggested the brilliant compromise of a stick man inside of a circle so that it would remind people of da Vinci's famous Vitruvian Man? That was my favorite idea of all. I'm not kidding!
Posted by: 386sx | September 24, 2007 9:43 PM
@#5
Civil rights do not permit you to tell private business owners they have to serve you. Private business owners reserve the right to refuse service to any customer for any reason. Most don't for silly reasons because refusing customers isn't conducive to making money, and few people own businesses for the purpose of losing money.
The situation is somewhat different for publicly-traded corporations (though I couldn't tell you exact details), and if the government does it, it's quite the violation of civil rights. However, atheists have no more "right" to be served by private businesses that don't want to serve them than Christians have a right to force unwilling people to listen to their proselytizing.
Posted by: uknesvuinng | September 24, 2007 9:50 PM
Ah, thanks, PZ. Since the businesses were small and locally owned, giving their names would do no good.
The owners at the first print shop were slightly acquainted with me, I'd done business with them before, saw them around town, etc, so this genuinely surprised me (though it probably shouldn't have.) I didn't know anyone at the second place, but it still seemed odd, and they were so polite. Of course.
I live in a small city in Wisconsin, and though it's religious it's usually polite, and therefore usually rather private on people's religion. The few Christians who have personally spoken to me of my being an atheist (I am "out") were quick to reassure me that that's fine, because tolerance, diversity, acceptance, equality and freedom of religion are all concepts which fall directly out of the teachings of Jesus. Though I recognize that as b.s., it's still a positive approach. It's nice.
Sheboygan county, everyone's nice. They smile and apologize even when they throw you out.
I suspect I have gotten too used to debate forums, where even those who disagree with you are eventually forced to respect the fact that you see rational merit in your beliefs, true or false, and there's a lot of overlap between your positions. And vice versa, when I disagree with Christians or other theists. I've grown to respect even some of the poor arguments, which are often quite complex underneath, or which might at least "have the heart in the right place."
When you attempt to persuade someone to a different viewpoint, you're forced to assume a common ground of equality, rationality, of good will, of basic similarity. "Here's why you should want to change your mind." You can't just shrug and dismiss the other side with "well, I'm an atheist. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Please."
I think that's one of the reasons it is so important for positive arguments for atheism to be made to the general public. If we're wrong, we're wrong for the right reasons. We're not The Other, to be lumped in with bigots and criminals and the Ku Klux Klan. We're not nutcases on the fringe, denying the obvious out of perversity. We're you're neighbors, and we've usually thought about religion and morality quite a lot.
In fact, we often take religion more seriously than some of you do. We care about whether it's true more than whether it's useful. And that's giving real respect to it.
Posted by: Sastra | September 24, 2007 9:56 PM
It's always a good thing to learn when Christians don't value atheists' money. My business can be taken elsewhere with no waste of my time. How can their religious beliefs add any value to the work?
Posted by: Ken Cope | September 24, 2007 9:57 PM
Two years ago I gave a sizeable check to an Eastern Nazarene Church in Texas to which my cousin and her husband have belonged for more 30 years. It was to a fund to buy several stained glass windows for the church. My cousin knows I'm an atheist but I doubt anyone else knows. I even attended a Sunday morning service particiapting in all the events except where I thought doing so would imply my endorsement of their beliefs or could be interpreted as hypocritical on my part. No one questioned me and everyone, including the pastor, were quite cordial and made no attempt to proselytize me. To this day I wonder what reaction I might have encountered had any known I do not accept any of their religious dogma. Now I wonder how any of them would feel were I to attend a meeting of atheists or even the local Unitarian parish.
Posted by: Keanus | September 24, 2007 9:59 PM
It seems like the angels were fornicating in the copier machines.
Posted by: John Danley | September 24, 2007 10:03 PM
Why do we need a Secular America?
Because this one is broken. Rather obvious, I thought...
Posted by: tsg | September 24, 2007 10:12 PM
We do have a secular America, actually. At least, no one has required a religious test of me to do anything in the U.S., up to and including running for public office.
Posted by: David Wilford | September 24, 2007 10:18 PM
Refusing service to someone based on their religious status is prohibited by federal law. Religious status is an immutable class according to federal anti-discrimination law. As an attorney, I recommend you immediately contact a local civil rights attorney.
Imagine a legally analogous situation this way, what if you were black and they refused to serve you, well, because your poster was "too black" and they're "white".
Posted by: EnzoAntonius | September 24, 2007 10:18 PM
You may think it either sad or good (or anywhere on the spectrum between) that the bottom line is that any business decisions, whether those businesses are owned by christians or others, are usually going to be determined by the amount of money spent there, even when weighing ethics.
If atheists are vocal in support of those businesses which support all views, then even those businesses owned by rabid christians might think about how religious-discrimination might hurt their profits.
Again, this is another issue about whether being vocal about atheism is beneficial to those who are atheistic or whether it is better to "be quiet" about it, so that christians will not be offended that anyone not believe as they do.
"Being quiet" about it has emboldened christians to discriminate in this matter, as in so many others.
Don't be quiet.
Posted by: cyan | September 24, 2007 10:32 PM
I'm not a lawyer, but a little googling turns up that businesses can refuse to serve some people on certain grounds, but not others. As EnzoAntonius says, religion is a federally protected category, as is race, so no refusing service on those grounds.. Some states have wider protections, including sexual orientation etc... But a customer can sometimes be refused if it's determined that there was a legitimate business interest behind the refusal. I think the example in the post is definitely illegal.
Posted by: Chris Howard | September 24, 2007 10:33 PM
Thanks EnzoAntonius,
I thought that was the way that was supposed to work. If I refused to teach student's of mine that were xian because I'm an atheist (even though I work for a private college) I would expect we would be sued to high heaven.
Posted by: Dahan | September 24, 2007 10:33 PM
A few months ago we received our official Christian Blue Pages business directory. I had no idea the thought of Christian money going to potentially non-Christian businesses was so bad that Christians felt the need to do this. I work in retail, and recently I had a customer I spent some time with helping her find what she needed. She seemed nice enough, and apparantly thought the same as me. As we were winding down, she said "Do you mind if I ask you a personal question?", to which I immediately thought, "Aw, fuck." Sure enough, the witnessing commenced. I politely told her I was not a Christian, and asked if there was anything else I could help her with. She then told me she would have to take her business elsewhere. I can't say I was sorry to see her go, but, what the fuck? Next these people will be clamoring for their own Christian oxygen, so as not to breath in the toxic fumes we dirty atheists exhale. Christ, these people are dense....
Posted by: Brian | September 24, 2007 10:43 PM
Actually, this is a good story to tell Cherry Communications.
Posted by: John Danley | September 24, 2007 10:54 PM
Re comments 17, 10, 5 and 2:
The legal situation is, as usual, a bit more complex than any one of us would like.
In general, a business can do business with whomever it chooses. However, in certain instances, the federal government (either under the power to regulate interstate commerce or the 14th amendment) or the states (under their constitutions) have modified that to protect certain classes.
Instance 1: companies engaged in interstate commerce or public accomodations can't discriminate based on race, gender, etc. Religion is included, and so is Atheism (thanks to Peter Rodino -- see here). I don't know of a test case, but see the "freedom riders" for the federal nature of the law.
Instance 2: If it's not covered by federal law, it might be covered by state law. I'm never going to live in Kentucky, thanks to the attempt to pass a specific exclusion of atheism as a protected creed (see the story of Camp Quest getting kicked out of a Kentucky Baptist camp here). Note that a specific exclusion of one religion might be actionable by the first amendment's establishment clause, but I wouldn't want to pay for testing it!
Instance 3: Wisconsin law, taken from the WI website:
Section 106.52 of the Wisconsin Statutes provides that it is against the law to deny service or to give unequal treatment in service because of sex, race, color, creed, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. Discrimination in relation to age, 18 and older, is only unlawful in regard to lodging establishments. "Public accommodations" includes, but is not limited to, hotels, motels, restaurants, taverns, retail stores, exercise clubs, dry cleaners, auto repair shops, and other service establishments. The law does not apply when a private, nonprofit organization provides goods or services to only its members or their guests.
Based on that, I would say that the law does apply to retail print shops, and that it does apply to protect atheists (which is a "creed", I think).
But here's the kicker: I am not a lawyer, and your milage may vary. Free advice is often overpriced.
Thanks for letting me rant.
Posted by: spudbeach | September 24, 2007 10:55 PM
I am doubting the situation violates any laws, since the customer was not denied service due to his (her?) religion, but due to the nature of the project. I think people can refuse any job they want, for whatever reason. Of course, IANAL.
Posted by: efp | September 24, 2007 11:05 PM
Fuck 'em. Take your business to Kinko's.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | September 24, 2007 11:07 PM
I've got a shoe repair shop in a medium sized town, luckily on heathen infested Puget Sound, and I've been honest with folks when they ask me if I would take pamphlets or join them in church. A lot of people just refuse to believe that there is such thing as a genuine atheist. After learning of my lack of delusions, at least in the god sphere, they seldom come back. I am nice, and never push . I'm in business to make a living and send a daughter to UW.
Just because some christians boycott atheist owned business, I don't feel it is moral to retaliate. I said moral. Just because I can't relate to an invisible insane dictator in the sky doesn't mean I don't have a cultural moral compass. If we take this fight to the streets we don't know where we will end up. Humanism has all the cards, and eventually will prevail, but there will always be religious people.
I'm not advocating any sort of "framing". Keeping the churches' hands off government is an absolute imperative. If anyone has their freedom of conscience limited, all of us have our liberty curtailed.
It sounds like the print shop hurt only themselves by passing on a cash customer. I do find the comparison of Atheism to the KKK greatly offensive, but that's where we may have a teachable moment. We are dealing with folk who have been lied to about the godless. I think it's our chore to confront this cold war bigotry every time it is shoved in our faces.
Posted by: Bert Chadick | September 24, 2007 11:08 PM
When I reached the end of the post I found myself shocked this language. I would have written "bigoted shitheads", and I rarely curse.
I have to wonder if they'd have refused service to someone with overtly Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Buddist or other non-Christian material to print.
Posted by: Kseniya | September 24, 2007 11:11 PM
WHAT? You mean they kicked the KKK out? Isn't the KKK specifically for narrow minded Christian such as themselves? After all, their mission is, according to their webpage, to bring a message of hope and deliverance to white christian america.
Posted by: Deeks | September 24, 2007 11:13 PM
Re #6 and #8, We could all have a symbol that unites us, maybe some kind of building we could all congregate in, then some kind of book we could all refer to, sheesh ! Why do people have this need to gather together like sheep. I am an athiest, arent we supposed to be independant thinkers. Go join a golf club if you want to belong.
Posted by: TK | September 24, 2007 11:16 PM
Yeah, TK! Atheists should forever be separate. We can't do anything that might bring us together, like, say, reading atheist blogs.
Oh, oops.
Posted by: Nerull | September 24, 2007 11:21 PM
I suspect that the problem wasn't dealing with an atheist per se. As efp said, they made a point that they did not want to print anything which advocated, recognized, or promoted atheism, in any way. It made them "uncomfortable" because they're Christian. My guess is that if I were to go in tomorrow with fliers for Meals on Wheels or something they'd make a big show of being happy to print that for me.
IANAL, and have no plans to sue. I think it may be a gray area at best, and I'm not litigious. Plus I live in a small town. But I find that issue interesting. The "secularizing" which America could use is for more people to see the issue objectively and reasonably categorize "atheism" with things like "Buddhism" or "Platonism" or other religions and philosophies, instead of classifying it with hate groups or anti-American subversives. I doubt very much that a poster for a synagogue explaining the meaning of Passover would have been refused -- even though these people were Christian.
Posted by: Sastra | September 24, 2007 11:28 PM
#30 my point is, is that all you read ? maybe it is.
TK
Posted by: TK | September 24, 2007 11:30 PM
The constitution may not require one. That doesn't mean the voters don't.
Posted by: tsg | September 24, 2007 11:37 PM
My dissertation supervisor had the construction of his house halted when the builders, who were Scientologists, discovered that my supervisor was a psychologist. And this in Canada.
Posted by: oxytocin | September 24, 2007 11:55 PM
Live and let live. Although I can see how it would be shocking for a business to refuse to serve customers on the basis that they were atheists.
Maybe the atheists need to print up some pamphlets or booklets explaining their philosophy. You could call it the Watchtower or something. Oh wait, that is already taken. Well think of some sort of fundie sounding name, like What does god think? Followed by a blank page. Then witness to them and when they claim to be Xians so too bad, you only patronize atheist extablishments.
Just having a little amusement. Here on the West Coast, we don't run into this sort of thing very often at least in my circles. When someone starts in on the witness schtick, I just look blank and uninterested and don't respond until they run down. They are used to it.
Posted by: raven | September 25, 2007 12:05 AM
Under Federal Law, IIRC, the statutes exclude businesses that employ fewer than 15 people. I'm not a lawyer.
I do think it important that you call your nearest ACLU chapter and tell them your story. I doubt they would advocate suing (although the might). They may, however, be able to pursue other avenues. This isn't the kind of thing anybody should be taking lying down. You were discriminated against on the basis of your religious beliefs.
This really raises my hackles and the decision not to do something about it raises my hackles too. If you had asked to print something with the Star of David on it and they refused it would be the same thing.
phat
Posted by: phat | September 25, 2007 12:06 AM
Re the adjective for the new atheists.
I prefer Militant Atheists. That is what they are. Outspoken, outfront, and not going to ride in the back of the bus anymore.
I'm not one myself. But find that they are a lot less scary and destructive than the death cultists who might well take our country down with them. Don't laugh, look at the last 6 years since they gained considerable political power up to owning the president and theocratic party.
Six years ago, my colleagues started muttering that something was wrong. Being apolitical at the time, I just shrugged it off. Hey, were the USA, the world's leader in multiple fields and a superpower and champion of democracy and human rights. Point to them. I've never been so pessimistic and apalled about my home.
Posted by: raven | September 25, 2007 12:15 AM
If they'd done a good job, perhaps they could have won the exclusive contract to print the entire run of a new magazine!
Posted by: Ken Cope | September 25, 2007 12:16 AM
uknesvuinng, if a business refused someone who was black service because they were black, how far do you think that would get legally?
Posted by: David Wilford | September 25, 2007 12:32 AM
The "secularizing" which America could use is for more people to see the issue objectively and reasonably categorize "atheism" with things like "Buddhism" or "Platonism" or other religions and philosophies, instead of classifying it with hate groups or anti-American subversives.
Well, it might help to clue them in that those goddless Commies of yore in reality were imperialist Russians wearing some fancy Marxist theory for ideological clothes. Ditto for Hitler and his hallucinatory notions of racial superiorty. It's not as if Christianity hasn't also been co-opted by all sorts of opportunists bent on conquest either.
Posted by: David Wilford | September 25, 2007 12:43 AM
I must be terribly naive... being new to atheism and all, but I am SHOCKED that I could be refused services because I do not believe in a supernatural being - or more specifically, because I don't believe that Jesus is that supernatural being.
I don't know the law, but at the very least these blatant cases of discrimination should make front page news (yeah, right... I'm not that naive...). I do think it's not unreasonable to believe that there is a journalist somewhere out there that would consider these happenings worthy of coverage.
I highly encourage those who have had this experience to contact as many news stations/newspapers as possible and see where it goes (do seek advice/representation prior to). I understand the position that those who live in small communities might be placing themselves in, and wouldn't begrudge them for keeping quiet about it. But as this cloud of secrecy only serves to embolden the Believers and contribute to our abuse, you would be my heroes if you could see your way to shouting out about this.
Posted by: Learning | September 25, 2007 12:55 AM
TK, A symbol would have its uses. Once established, I would be interested to see how often it appears on bumper stickers and tee shirts, or carved upon the corpses of the pets and children we atheists are so fond of killing whilst they sleep. It would also be nice if, instead of having to shout "I don't care to hear your deluded ravings any more you mindless twit!" to the proselytizers who are entirely immune to my more polite attempts at dismissal, I could simply present an enchanted mark of some sort that would send them scurrying onward with nary a word (of mine) expended--or, better yet, that would so frazzle their faith-laced brains that the resultant stupor would preclude the resumption of their god-blathering, at least for a little while (I'm sure my neighbors would be grateful).
Posted by: J Myers | September 25, 2007 12:55 AM
Sastra -
Do you live in municipal Sheboygan? Personally, I absolutely love the irony of Sheboygan. Every other corner, either a church or a bar. Really friendly town though. Any town as friendly as that, to dirty, stinky hitch-hikers, can say something. Although, Texas was pretty friendly to me when I was hitching through (from the Texas renn festival, got to hitch through the smallest town in America, pop. 13). Please don't ask how I ended up in Sheboygan while hitching, these things just happen.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 25, 2007 1:19 AM
FWIW, one of the more memorable uses of symbols in my lifetime happened like this:
Posted by: David Wilford | September 25, 2007 1:23 AM
In light of some of the posts, I may or may not be inaccurate in my initial post, but as far as the situations go, I imagine it'd be the same for both, whatever that turns out to be. However, modern America isn't the place for that kind of overt racism to lead to a wildly successful business model. From a "should they be allowed to do so" point of view, I don't see it much differently from whether one is allowed to speak racism. Besides, I'd rather them be out and proud about their racism so I know who to sneer at and avoid than forced to use covert means to engage in it, thus creating the opportunity where I may unknowingly support their business.
Keep in mind I'm discussing local, privately-owned businesses, here. Corporations are a different matter, one to which I haven't given much thought. And obviously government services and civil rights shouldn't restricted based on such things as race or creed. However, I find the idea of a "civil right" to do business with a particular business about as justified as a "civil right" to post whatever you want on a particular internet forum.
Posted by: uknesvuinng | September 25, 2007 1:53 AM
Death threats! For that? Sadly, it is not as unbelievable as it ought to be.
I'm sure they did, and perhaps they were right. And yet, less than half a generation later, the entire US Olympic team led an international boycot of the 1980 Summer Olympic games in Moscow, a manifestly apolitical move that had nothing whatsoever to do with the Soviet invasion of... Afghanistan. The Soviets returned the favor by leading a boycott of the '84 Olympics in Los Angeles.
Posted by: Kseniya | September 25, 2007 1:56 AM
Re #21 and the official Christian Blue Pages business directory. Here's a directory for the entire US:
UseABeliever.com: The Premier Christian Business Directory.
Their justification for it is that it'll lead to more money going to the church (and also apparently you can't trust non-Christians to do business ethically). And should any unsaved people be put out of work, they can instead go to their local church's soup kitchen -- paid for by the increased tithing, of course.
Posted by: jpf | September 25, 2007 1:59 AM
David Wilford: Your "one of the more memorable uses of symbols in my lifetime happened like this" story ends on a rather ominous note (emphasized by your adding "..." for an ending).
What is your point, exactly?
I did a google search using the title you had: "1968 Black Medallists Raise Fist for Civil Rights Movement" and found that you left out the last two paragraphs of that article (which gives a *happier* ending than you imply), and I wonder why you chose to do that?...
Here are the last two paragraphs:
"Smith and Carlos, who both now coach high school track teams, were honored in 1998 to commemorate the 30th anniversary of their protest.
An interesting side note to the protest was that the 200m silver medallist in 1968, Peter Norman of Australia (who is white), participated in the protest that evening by wearing a OPHR badge."
The full article can be found at http://www.infoplease.com/spot/summer-olympics-mexico-city.html
Posted by: Learning | September 25, 2007 2:05 AM
#27: Hey, get it right - it's "demented fuckwits".
I thought we agreed on that already...
Posted by: Woof | September 25, 2007 2:10 AM
I think we have enough symbols already -- the Atom, the Invisible Pink Unicorn logo, the FSM, and most recently the Scarlet Letter. Et cetera.
Back when I first registered to vote, in a public library in North Carolina, I had to take an oath. It was basically the same as the President takes -- "support and defend the Constitution", etc. Anyway, the registrar (who I think was really a librarian) put a bible in front of me, so I said "I'm an atheist". I got such glares from a couple of people nearby, continuing until I left. It didn't seem to faze the librarian, but she hadn't been properly trained, either; she moved the book aside, but still started with "Do you solemnly swear..." (should've been "affirm"), and still ended with "so help you God?". Not wanting to drag this out any longer, I said "I do... except the part about God." That seemed to be acceptable.
So, that's the closest I've come to a religious test.
Posted by: Nemo | September 25, 2007 2:20 AM
Nemo, I've been sworn in twice as part of a panel of prospective jurors, each time with the "so help me God" phrase at the end of the oath. I quietly resented it both times. Now that my daughter will soon graduate from the public schools and not be subject to retaliation from her "Christian" classmates, I'm going to object the next time I'm called for jury duty.
Posted by: Elf Eye | September 25, 2007 3:52 AM
What is the official list of companies to boycott anyway?
Posted by: Leif | September 25, 2007 5:21 AM
Sad to read of the state things in the US. Sadly this increasingly hard line attitude of the Christians will probably spill over to us in some European countries as well. My point however is that I think a symbol for atheists is very wrong, why would a non-believer want to group himself in a collective complete with a symbol. It goes against the very fundamental aspect of non-believers. We do not need to belong to some kind of a special society, club, or orginazation. We should be the coming NORM which does not need to be tagged specifically. Let the little souls who among other things, cannot but belong to some larger group. Let them assign themselves to some corner of society. Atheists should not plot their own corner. Ever noticed the irony of the anarchists having their symbol, just the fact that anarchist use a symbol goes agains the essence of their message. Atheists should not make the same mistake.
Posted by: Baldur | September 25, 2007 5:54 AM
Baldur, your point seems to be that atheists are not some homogeneous group but a subsection of the population with a diverse set of philosophical viewpoints. Unfortunately you seem to completely miss the implication of your own argument.
Certainly there are the 'herded cats' segment of non believers but there are also others that do value community and association with other likeminded individuals. One useful aspect of the 'Framers' debacle has been the highlighting of the point that just because someone says they are an atheist (or in the case of Kirk Cameron and Francis Collins, 'were' an atheist) it doesnt make them the same sort of atheist as you.
Certainly avoid association with non believers if that is not your thing (avoiding this board would be a good way to begin!) just don't assume we all feel the same way.
Posted by: MartinC | September 25, 2007 7:21 AM
Baldur: speak for yourself. I'd be very keen to see more skeptical atheism "social clubs". We could read philosophical books, discuss scientific discoveries, share fundie-avoidance tactics, etc.
Quite frankly there is no way in hell that we'll become the norm in society unless we have institutions of that sort. Refraining from getting together in groups is not a sign of intellectual purity; it's a fatal weakness of our cause.
If there are any atheists from Reading (UK) reading this who agree with me, leave a comment on my blog and we can meet up for a coffee or something.
Posted by: Corkscrew | September 25, 2007 7:32 AM
The red A is a tatoo on my arm(same as the A on your first page).
Posted by: r. maxwell | September 25, 2007 7:35 AM
Ever notice the irony of a complete and total fool naming himself after the Scandinavian god of sunlight? No, wait, that isn't ironic. It's just baldurdash.
Posted by: Caledonian | September 25, 2007 7:44 AM
David Wilford: Your "one of the more memorable uses of symbols in my lifetime happened like this" story ends on a rather ominous note (emphasized by your adding "..." for an ending).
What is your point, exactly?
That coming up with a symbol is the easier part of changing the status quo.
The reality also is that all three of the medalists on that Olympic podium in 1968 paid a price for their protest afterwards.
Posted by: David Wilford | September 25, 2007 7:44 AM
On the symbol for Atheists in reply to #54: Maybe it´s my bad command of the english language that has prehibited me from having stated my point more clearly. I do value the community of other people, with all kinds of views and I know the value of orginised work from a body of people with the same set of values or interests. To state this point:I for example sit on the board of the Bird protection society in my home country and belong to a political movement. But that I will go pransing around with a flag preaching my Atheist standpoint reminds me too much of the tribalism that I have always found silly. Perhaps it's the difference between the level of religion in our two countries that has molded our difference. Here being a Atheist is no big deal, most of my countrymen sit on the fence and say: "well I believe in something but I would not go this far, pointing towards the US" and Atheists are probably almost as many as praying Christians, but much less outspoken. For me putting a bumpersticker on my car with a symbol marking me as an Atheist would be implicating that I belong to some minority with "out of the norm" views, let me put this another way; when you go to the supermarked, there are all these unmarked parking-lots then there are a few with signs for the handycapped, some for deliverytrucks etc. My idea is to look at us as individuals without a handycap, let the "religiously" handycapped drive around with their symbols such as the crosses, stars or whatever. Last; I will take into account that in the US, you might have to fight a more organised battle for sanity than we do over here.
Posted by: Baldur | September 25, 2007 8:00 AM
Baldur wrote:
There was discussion along this line at the AAI, of course, and the general consensus was that we already are a loosely-knit, diverse group set apart by a particular philosophical approach and conclusion. Words are symbols, too -- "non-believer," atheist, agnostic, secular humanist, metaphysical naturalist, etc. If there's a word for it, then a symbol simply stands for the word: it doesn't indicate a special society or club.
Our poster states "To aid in our recognition, identification, and positive image, many of us feel there should be a clear, universal character which represents 'a lack of belief in God.' This public symbol would represent atheism in general, and not be limited to any particular science theory, philosophy, or organization."
As atheists become more outspoken and eventually accepted into the culture, I think the need for a symbol is going to increase. Not just for tombstones and jewelery, but quick backdrops at media events or on diversity panels, when other symbols indicating views on religion are set in a row and there's a blank spot above the atheist's head, so that nobody's sure what that guy on the end is.
Bottom line, something is eventually going to emerge from grass roots, because symbols are just too handy and practical in many situations. Right now the symbols which really seem to be starting to make their way out to the general public are 1.) the Darwin fish and 2.) The logo for the American Atheist organization.
The first one equates evolution with atheism, and implies worship of Darwin. Problems there are obvious, I think, no matter how you feel about the dreaded f-word. Like me, you may agree that -- if the existence of God is treated as a science hypothesis and one follows evolution (or chemistry or physics) down all the way -- the theory of evolution indicates a natural universe without a Guiding Disembodied Intelligence to start things off and poke around -- but atheism and the theory of evolution are still not equivalent.
The other symbol, the atomic A, is exclusive to one particular organization (a logo, more than a symbol), and is probably copywrited. I find it a bit surprising that the military uses it on the headstones of atheists, members or not. Dawkins' Atheist "A" is appealing, and has momentum, but again, it's associated with a particular group, doesn't seem to be in the public domain, and I think it's a bit too simple to be recognizable, especially in black and white.
So if some sort of symbol is eventually going to win the battle for public recognition, it would be nice if it doesn't have any major drawbacks. Uncomplicated, easy to remember, unique, positive -- like the Affinity. I know there are atheists who hate the very idea of a symbol -- but think about it. All things being equal, if there IS a symbol, better that it not annoy you for good reasons beyond its very existence.
Posted by: Sastra | September 25, 2007 8:15 AM
Well Caledonian, the name Baldur is actually my second name....The other half of my name is our version of John...so that makes me a double "total fool" I guess. Again symbols (in this case, names)are getting in peoples way.
Posted by: Baldur | September 25, 2007 8:19 AM
I pray that your hearts will open to the truth of Christ.
Posted by: saved | September 25, 2007 8:28 AM
Well, it's not quite the topic but I think we should stop multiplying symbols. Of the existing ones, I vote for the scarlet letter. It's simple, elegant, and resonant in meaning.
Posted by: Russell Blackford | September 25, 2007 8:32 AM
Changing things is far from easy. I guess we should give up.
Welcome to being part of a social movement and/or standing up for something. I've received death threats for my gay activism. Hell, I've been harrassed on the street and at my workplace because I was openly gay. I was isolated by other queers in a small town because the didn't want to maybe be pegged by association. Was it hard? Hell yes! Was it worth it? You'd better fucking believe it.
I'm not an activist atheist, but I'm a very open one. In Boston it's not that hard. Who knows where I'll end up teaching next, but I'm not going back in either closet.
Posted by: MAJeff | September 25, 2007 8:33 AM
But we're not holding our breath.
Posted by: Caledonian | September 25, 2007 8:36 AM
If you just wanted to pray for us, you could do so without mentioning it. Are you really posting this for our benefit, or for your own?
Posted by: MartinM | September 25, 2007 8:44 AM
Business rule of thumb (including by most of my clients in the Christian Music Industry): Make people who avow themselves as "Christians" pay up-front or when they pick-up the goods/services. Otherwise you'll have to fight for your money, they'll demand "Christian" discounts or flat-out won't pay you. If you do work for a church, always get paid up-front. Period.
Internal Control rule of thumb: The number one profile of an embezzler is a White Christian Male who is considered "devout" evidenced by going to church at least twice a week and, frequently, is involved in some type of "ministry" or "youth" activity. This is followed by a white Christian woman with the same profile.
Posted by: Moses | September 25, 2007 8:46 AM
Thanks for nothing. Literally.
Posted by: tsg | September 25, 2007 8:56 AM
While we are defining a "New Atheism", why not define it as a religion?!?! We have been told often enough (even by judges) that "atheism is just another religion". OK, let's go with that. It could be fun to turn the legal tables in our favor for a change. Here is our Creed (I haven't worked out all the details, but neither has Christianity):
--- Nature is our God.
--- Fossils are our relics.
--- Nature's laws are commandments.
--- Evo is the way God creates species.
--- Sex is Nature's way of saying "hello".
--- Devo is the way God propagates individuals.
--- Eternal oblivion is what we seek for our souls.
And if you call us "crackpots", we sue your assets in federal court!
Posted by: June | September 25, 2007 8:59 AM
I'd suggest returning to the offending shops with a copy of the law and politely explaining that what they did was illegal. There's no need to threaten a lawsuit or a boycott or anything like that - knowing Sheboygan, it wouldn't do much good anyway. Just a genial conversation that there are laws against religious discrimination and they're unnecessarily putting their business at risk. The decision is ultimately up to them.
Posted by: Bob | September 25, 2007 9:00 AM
Funny,
Maybe I'm overly cynical, but I always looked at those lists of christian businesses as a list of rubes who will give you discounts when you lie to them about your faith.
Not that I've ever taken advantage of them in that fashion. But it has always seemed to me that they are cutting their own throat.
Posted by: Flex | September 25, 2007 9:12 AM
Posted by: Caledonian | September 25, 2007 9:14 AM
Baldur @ #53-
FWIW, I didn't (over)interpret your post to imply that atheists shouldn't gather or meet to discuss ideas. Your English is fine. And I agree with you about the symbol; IMO, there's something sheeplike and jolly hockey sticks about the "let's have a Club with T-shirts and badges and a treehouse and a secret handshake" mentality.
Certainly avoid association with non believers if that is not your thing (avoiding this board would be a good way to begin!) just don't assume we all feel the same way.
Ever notice the irony of a complete and total fool naming himself after the Scandinavian god of sunlight?
"And we can exclude people who disagree with us, and make fun of their screennames too!" :-P
Posted by: Barn Owl | September 25, 2007 9:19 AM
"I pray that your hearts will open to the truth of Christ."
Ewwwwwwwww....bad mental image...
Posted by: Laser Potato | September 25, 2007 9:19 AM
Just because some christians boycott atheist owned business, I don't feel it is moral to retaliate.
I live in the Sunshine State, and I've been quietly boycotting any business that displays the Jesus Fish symbol in its advertising (it's quite common down here, even in one of the state's larger metropolitan areas). I personally don't see anything immoral about it. Though when I think about it, I guess the boycott stems not from the fact that they're Christian so much as it does from the fact that I think it's unbelievably crass for these people to say "the fact that we're oh-so-publicly Christian means we deserve your business more than someone who isn't."
Posted by: Fishbone McGonigle | September 25, 2007 9:37 AM
Rather than suing, I suggest that we shift the discourse.
Every time someone comes to the door to witness, start going on about how you heard Christians were all immoral.
What with their concern with the afterlife, and only deity-belief as their key in, what kind of accountability can they possibly have in this life (Then throw in whatever you like: Bush, Hitler, read from the Old Testament, whatever).
Make them fight the uphill battle against perceived immorality. Make them come up with a "supernaturalistic" explanation for everyday morality. Make them feel the bias that we do everyday.
Is this a wise move in the occulture wars? Probably not, but try it, and those poor fellows at your door will spend so much time digging themselves out of that purely conceptual hole, you will hardly have to hear about transubstantiation at all.