The deathbed (non)conversion

The recent death of Christopher Hitchens resulted in the expected profusion of obituaries but a surprisingly small (given similar events in the past) number of claims that HItchens made a final deathbed conversion.

Do you think that that has more to do with the personality/persona of Hitchens himself, his writings during the last months of his life or changes in American society?

---

 

The Board Administration Team
(hapax, Kit Whitfield and mmy)



Comments

[ZMiles]

I would guess the former.

[RodeoBob]

I'm guessing "none of the above". I'll instead peg it to a few other elements:

*Yes, his writings during the last month were probably a factor, but I think the more correct association would be the immediacy of technology. Hitchens was able to continue writing and publishing during the last months of his life. Thanks to blogging, email, twitter, etc. etc. etc. if he had any late shifts in perspective, it would have been easy to publish them, promote them, and share them. In times past, a man could slink into seclusion in his last days, and what happens then "is a mystery to everyone", which invites speculation. By keeping himself public, there is no mystery, and thus no speculation.

*On the subject of atheism, Hitchens had strong allies like P.Z. Myers and Dawkins who watched for claims of deathbed conversions or similar tripe and loudly denounced them. I think the presence of defenders, especially ones with very big microphones (cyberguns?) kept potential rumors down. We live in an age of Google and Snopes after all.

[Michael Mock]

Hitchens was certainly outspoken about it, and remained outspoken to the last - so I'm inclined to think that there simply hasn't been enough time. Once memories have had a chance to grow foggy, and the event isnt so immediate, I expect to see more deathbed conversion stories circulating.

[Ruby]

Yeah, I'm not seeing any big change in American society. I think a part of it was that atheists were predicting claims of deathbed conversions for quite some time. It's harder to call Deathbed Conversion when you know people see it coming. Perhaps the only change in society is greater awareness of just how many shameless lies people are willing to tell about "deathbed conversions."

[Kit Whitfield]

I wonder if one element might be that Hitchens offended so many people, a lot of Christians just don't want to claim him on their side. He'd make a better myth as an example of the Rude Atheist Who's Now Burning.

For some Christians, I'm sure, the idea of a deathbed conversion is based on the desire to say 'I told you so', but for others I'd expect it's based on a sense of misdirected charity: they genuinely think someone will suffer if they don't convert and they don't like to think of that person suffering. But for the latter kind, Hitchens may have strained their sense of charity past the usual point.

[Dash]

For some Christians, I'm sure, the idea of a deathbed conversion is based on the desire to say 'I told you so', but for others I'd expect it's based on a sense of misdirected charity: they genuinely think someone will suffer if they don't convert and they don't like to think of that person suffering.

I really would like to think it's so, but I came out of that subculture. I'm sorry to say that almost every instance of a claimed very late (not necessarily deathbed) conversion of a famous person I've ever seen was an "I told you so." Or, more accurately, I guess, "we told them so!" The one exception I can think of was Princess Diana, for whom an evangelical conversion was claimed, mostly by young evangelical girls who were deeply affected by her death and, as Kit noted, probably didn't like thinking of her suffering in hell. Certainly, such conversions are often claimed for one's relatives.

However, no such deathbed conversions are generally claimed for famous people generally acknowledged to be good and virtuous or otherwise admirable: Gandhi, Sitting Bull, Thomas Jefferson, Albert Schweitzer, Mark Twain apparently all went straight to hell without a backward glance or a second thought. (I did, however, know of at least one or two evangelicals who maintained that Sitting Bull would most likely make it into heaven on the grounds that he was like the good Calormene in C. S. Lewis' The Last Battle, who worshipped God without knowing that the god he worshipped was really the Christian one.)

Actually, though, you can see the stories starting. Just google "Hitchens deathbed conversion." The comments at this point are along the lines of, "well, he said he wouldn't, so he probably didn't, but then we don't really know, do we?" For example, Theology Geek has decided to interpret Hitchen's behavior to his own side's benefit thus: "Hitchens suspected there would be rumors of a deathbed conversion—but even more he feared that he might actually call out to God."

[hapax]

Hitchens suspected there would be rumors of a deathbed conversion—but even more he feared that he might actually call out to God

Oh, for pete's sake. Get off my side, you're making us look stupid.

[Ruby]

Dash: For example, Theology Geek has decided to interpret Hitchen's behavior to his own side's benefit thus: "Hitchens suspected there would be rumors of a deathbed conversion—but even more he feared that he might actually call out to God."

*snerk* Yeah. And I'm a real true believer because I stubbed my toe last night and yelled out, "Jesus Christ!"

[Nick Kiddle]

//And I'm a real true believer because I stubbed my toe last night and yelled out, "Jesus Christ!"//

I tweeted the other day that it's not a prayer if you can replace the word "god" with the word "fuck" and get something an atheist might plausibly say. (The idea in my mind was something like, "Oh god, what do we do now?") Quite a few people seemed tickled by that one.

[Ruby]

Since this is the atheism thread right now: there is a new study out about trust of atheists. It was published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Here is the abstract:

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&id=966EAE26-F49A-70C7-FCDF-4C7A676EC8C8&resultID=1&page=1&dbTab=pa

And the full paper is here:

http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/Manuscripts/Gervais%20et%20al-%20Atheist%20Distrust.pdf

And news:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/study-religious-people-trust-atheists-about-as-much-as-they-do-rapists/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2074608/Religious-believers-count-atheists-as-trustworthy-rapists-says-new-study.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

[Timothy (TRiG)]

Yeah, PZ Myers had a bit about that a while ago, saying that it's about standard in-group/out-group comparisons.

***

If we're going to have a general atheism thread, should we talk about Reddit? Trigger warnings: discussion of misogyny and rape "jokes". Atheist blogoshere is lighting up again. Greta Christina's post was aposite (as usual). Trigger warnings: discussion of comments that are misogynistic, violent, sadistic and threaten rape. Could we add a TW to that. Digital Cuttlefish wrote "The Story of No One You've Ever Heard Of" partly in response to this, but also as a more general response to this sort of story. (See awsomeness from Rebecca Watson in the comments).

TRiG.

[J. Random Scribbler]

Hapax: Oh, for pete's sake. Get off my side, you're making us look stupid.

Are you referring to the linked Theology Geek page? There are certainly some elements in that second obituary (by Douglas Wilson) that strike me as condescending and disrespectful to nonreligious people -- really, to any non-Christian -- but I'm curious what provoked your reaction?

[hapax]

J. Random Scribbler -- I was just disgusted by the facile (indeed smug) question-begging that I saw behind the comment I quoted, as well as the whole second obituary.

Maybe I'm hearing dog-whistles that weren't meant to be there, but it read very much to me as "Of *course* Hitchens SEKRITTLY KNOWS that God exists, and he's just been obstinantly denying it all along -- but once his defenses are down, Hitch knows that God will sneak in and snatch him!"

I think that it was mostly the peculiar emphasis on the statement "If he confessed faith, then he, the Christopher Hitchens that we all knew, should be counted as already dead." I could not help hearing it as a nudge-nudge-wink-wink shoutout to Paul, particularly Romans 6.

[Pseudonym]

I'm not familiar with American society, so help me out here. What similar events? How many reports of deathbed conversions have there been over time as a proportion of dead atheists?

We're a bit out of the loop here in Australia, but the most recent claim I've heard of is Jean-Paul Sartre who was interested in (but didn't convert to) Judaism. I'm sure someone must have started a rumour about Carl Sagan, but I haven't heard it, and it probably didn't make it very far.

[Pseudonym]

On second thoughts, perhaps these rumours tend to stay inside the US-style evangelical echo chamber. Maybe we haven't heard any because they haven't jumped the fence yet.

[Timothy (TRiG)]

The most famous tale is Lady Hope's report that Charles Darwin changed his mind on his deathbed. The last I read, there's considerable doubt that Lady Hope even existed (and the names's just a bit too pat, isn't it?).

I can't think of others off hand.

TRiG.

[Mmy]

I have heard rumours about basically every prominent atheist/evolutionist from Darwin to Gould to Sagan.

[Amaryllis]

Wallace Stevens is alleged to have been baptized into the Catholic church on his deathbed, back in 1955, according to a letter written in 1977 by the hospital chaplain.

This is contradicted by his daughter, and I've read that no such baptism is documented by the records of the Archdiocese of Hartford. (The letter alleges that the Archbishop at the time ordered that Stevens' family shouldn't be told so as not to cause a scene at the hospital, and that the baptism not be made public.)

I've also seen claims that the Archdiocese now confirms the baptism, but I can't find any actual citations.

I'm not sure it matters, either way. He's still the man who wrote:

She says, “I am content when wakened birds,
Before they fly, test the reality
Of misty fields, by their sweet questionings;
But when the birds are gone, and their warm fields
Return no more, where, then, is paradise?”
There is not any haunt of prophecy,
Nor any old chimera of the grave,
Neither the golden underground, nor isle
Melodious, where spirits gat them home,
Nor visionary south, nor cloudy palm
Remote on heaven’s hill, that has endured
As April’s green endures; or will endure
Like her remembrance of awakened birds,
Or her desire for June and evening, tipped
By the consummation of the swallow’s wings.

...

She hears, upon that water without sound,
A voice that cries, “The tomb in Palestine
Is not the porch of spirits lingering.
It is the grave of Jesus, where he lay.”
We live in an old chaos of the sun,
Or old dependency of day and night,
Or island solitude, unsponsored, free,
Of that wide water, inescapable.
Deer walk upon our mountains, and the quail
Whistle about us their spontaneous cries;
Sweet berries ripen in the wilderness;
And, in the isolation of the sky,
At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
Downward to darkness, on extended wings.

from "Sunday Morning"

(And he's still the guy who could write like that while spending thirty years at his day job at the insurance company.)

[dr ngo]

I note with interest that this was posted on Rizal Day, the Philippine national holiday celebrating the martyrdom (public execution) of the polymath nationalist Jose Rizal in 1896. Rizal, raised as a Catholic but long alienated from the Church, is alleged to have written a "Retraction" of unbelief (Masonry, etc.) in a controversy that continues to this day in innumerable books, articles, essays, and speeches. From what I can tell of the evidence, the "retraction" is probably a forgery, but it is maintained as genuine by many people I otherwise respect, perhaps on the (unspoken) grounds that a Jesuit - who must have been the forger if there was one - wouldn't do something like that. I've even been assured that even though the signature on the "retraction" is not Rizal's, the document itself represents the truth of his return to the bosom of the Church.

It's hard to know what to say to people on Rizal Day. Since we are commemorating his death, "Happy Rizal Day" seems out-of-place and fatuous, as "Happy Good Friday" does, I suspect. ("Happy Memorial Day" works, however, suggesting that the occasion has lost its original meaning.) What I wind up saying - and this does not lend itself to particularly snappy phrase making - is this. If you know (of) Jose Rizal, remember today his life and his death. If you don't, learn.

[J. Random Scribbler]

Thanks, Hapax, that does make sense. The smugness in the Douglas Wilson piece really grated on me, though I did miss the Romans 6 parallel.

Oh, and that Reddit thing blew me away. Thanks for the links, TRiG.

[Kit Whitfield]

Trigger warning: the Greta Christina article quotes some extremely nasty comments that are misogynistic, violent, sadistic and threaten rape. Could we add a TW to that?

[Kit Whitfield]

I've been having a look at the links Greta Christina provided, and one of them (by Stephanie Zvan) made an interesting assertion about the extraordinary festival of misogyny and rape jokes* that arose in response to an underage girl putting up a picture on the subject of 'Hey, my mother did something nice for me':

Here’s the thing, boys and girls: I don’t get this crap anywhere else I choose to invest my time. I don’t get it from my friends, because those people don’t get the privilege of remaining my friend. I don’t get it at work, where they’ve gone well beyond the basic legal requirements in order to make it a place where women also have rewarding work and an opportunity for advancement. As a result, I’m surrounded by smart, confident people of various genders who take everybody seriously. There is the very rare sexist idiot, but the conspiracies we create to work around these people are open and supportive.

I don’t even get it in those legendary bastions of “social ineptitude,” fantasy and science fiction fandom and conventions. Don’t get me wrong. There are definitely still problems, but predators and discriminatory publishing practices are considered problems of the community, and the institutions that support the problems are rightly pressured (and aided) to fix themselves. This “we’re so helpless in the face of a few bad actors” nonsense doesn’t fly.

This is very much about atheism. It’s also about the more general skeptical community, of course, but atheism is a big part of that and getting bigger.

(http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2011/12/29/yes-hate-atheists/)

Is this the experience of other atheists and fandom members? And if so, why do you think that is? I have to say I was really startled at how grotesque the behaviour was towards that poor kid - certainly nobody I know would do that - but since I participate neither in the atheist movement nor fandoms, I'm not in the position to judge the comparison. What do people here think?

*Brief summary, triggers as minimised as possible: a pretty fifteen-year-old girl posted a picture of herself holding a copy of Carl Sagan's Demon-Haunted World headed 'What my super religious mother got me for Christmas.' Lots of people responded with lots of really vile jokes about what they'd like to do with her, and lots of other people upvoted them. (With a side-order of 'Women are stupid because they post pictures of themselves as well as the book', an observation that is factually incorrect as well as sexist.) Rebecca Watson remarked that this was crappy behaviour, and got attacked for it.

Sigh.

[Ruby]

Kit: Lots of people responded with lots of really vile jokes about what they'd like to do with her, and lots of other people upvoted them.

I know we've discussed this before, but I'm still not seeing this as a problem of the atheist community more than other places. As far as nasty online comments and their popularity, I can think of two situations in just the past couple of weeks where similar comments were common and popular: the lesbian couple in the Navy getting the first kiss, and the BBC naming a panda as one of the top ten women of the year. And these were just general news stories in popular publications.

I'm glad for Zvan that she doesn't get this anywhere else in her life, but I doubt everyone else is so lucky. I am now--my family (mostly) and friends are sensible feminists, and my workplace is uniformly excellent. Most of us do not live in a Mad Men world anymore. That doesn't mean some of us don't now, or haven't had jobs in the past where there were Big Problems in such areas.

I think there are problems in atheism, in fandom, in sports, in lots of places. But I don't see atheists as being more accepting of the problem than others. (Didn't we just see an article here about misogyny in comic fandom, with a link to the article, which was complete with "a few bad apples" comments?)

Something is a problem, deal with it. Though I'm not sure what purpose is served by playing We're Teh Worst Olympics. Honestly, what does that accomplish? How does that help with anything?

[Mmy]

TRIGGER WARNING FOR DISCUSSION OF VIOLENT MISOGYNY, CHILD ABUSE AND RAPE

@Ruby: While it is true that there are some rather nice places for atheists to hang out and there are many places on the net that are rife with polite or dismissive or ignorant misogyny there are only a few "types" of places where I have seen open and accepted physical threats being thrown around--certain subsections of the "sceptical/atheist/geek" community and certain subsections of the white supremacist community. It isn't even (usually) quite as bad among the violent anti-gay communities.

I think that what stands out to Zvan (it certainly is what stands out to me) is the degree to which others in the group don't just stand by when such behaviour happens -- they encourage it, they cheer it, they applaud it.

[Ruby]

@mmy--The only place I have ever been personally threatened online was a political forum.

I'm afraid the cheering appears just as much (from what I can see) on political blogs and religious blogs and well...many places.

Also, IMHO, atheists and geeks are two different but overlapping groups. Not all atheists are geeks, and not all geeks are atheists.

[Mmy]

@Ruby: well, unless we are going to sit down and compare number of forums visited over a number of years and to compare actual threats this becomes a "my experience" versus "your experience" thing.

TRIGGER WARNING FOR DISCUSSION OF VIOLENT MISOGYNY

I can say that in over a decade (ACHHHH nearly 2 decades) of usenet and internet reading of groups that are political / racist / pornographic the only place that I have ever seen the conversation going from zero to let's anally rape a child -- to the accompaniment of cheers -- have been atheist/skeptical groups and violent racial supremacists.

Do I think that we atheists are more likely to be violent rapists? No, of course not. I do think that we tolerate within our midst people who at least like to play that role on the net.

And I don't like what that says about US.

[Ruby]

mmy: well, unless we are going to sit down and compare number of forums visited over a number of years and to compare actual threats this becomes a "my experience" versus "your experience" thing

Exactly. That was my point when discussing Zvan's comments. She has great family and friends. Not everyone does. She has a great workplace. Not everyone does. Sure, we could all list our cred all day, but again, I do wonder what purpose it serves to play "atheists are teh worst EVER" every time atheism is discussed.

[Kit Whitfield]

Though I'm not sure what purpose is served by playing We're Teh Worst Olympics. Honestly, what does that accomplish? How does that help with anything?

Presumably, in this case, an attempt to persuade people to stop saying, 'Well, society is misogynist everywhere' as an excuse not to clean house. Possibly also because the jerk atheists might be likely to argue that the discrimination they face for being atheists gives them some kind of right to be above criticism in their own environments, so saying, 'Look, you're actually worse than the people you say oppress you,' is an attempt to get their attention.

But based on that post I referred to, I didn't think the author was trying to play Olympics; I think she was just saying 'This is my experience and it pisses me off.' Which is fair enough.

--

mmy, do you think you might add a TW to your 10.38 post? Your second paragraph contains reference to the vile acts proposed, and I wouldn't want anyone to trip over them.

[Kit Whitfield]

Ruby - I'm not a member of the atheist movement, so I can't comment on whether it actually is worse than other places. But I think that, in the absence of any evidence either way, it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand that if we added everyone's experience together, it's possible that the atheist movement might come top of the list. Unless everywhere is exactly the same, which seems statistically unlikely, someone has to come top, and it might be the atheists.

The fact that you're describing this repeatedly as 'playing' strikes me as rather dismissive. It presupposes that women claiming their experiences in the atheist movement are usually bad are saying so for reasons of self-pity or tactics rather than because they're simply speaking their truth as they've experienced it - and I don't feel that's very respectful of their experience.

I don't know which places are worse than where, but since I don't think any of us do, dismissing someone's reported experience as 'playing' doesn't strike me as rational or fair. It feels like you're trying to shut down the discussion with mockery and implied accusations of game-playing. This may, of course, not be what you're trying to do, but the language you're using feels problematic to me.

[Ruby]

Kit: Presumably, in this case, an attempt to persuade people to stop saying, 'Well, society is misogynist everywhere' as an excuse not to clean house. Possibly also because the jerk atheists might be likely to argue that the discrimination they face for being atheists gives them some kind of right to be above criticism in their own environments, so saying, 'Look, you're actually worse than the people you say oppress you,' is an attempt to get their attention.

But the question is: Does saying things like that work? How well do oppressed persons respond to being told, "you're worse than everyone else," especially when coupled with the idea, "you say you're oppressed"?

But based on that post I referred to, I didn't think the author was trying to play Olympics; I think she was just saying 'This is my experience and it pisses me off.' Which is fair enough.

Of course it's fair. But, as mmy points out, it leads to "my experience beats your experience" and again, we're getting nowhere fast, except to turn the discussion into yet another "aren't atheists just big jerks." Which sometimes seems to be the only thing people can discuss when it comes to atheism.

[Ruby]

@Kit: You're right. I will not use the word "playing." As well, in rereading my comments, I think it also unintentionally makes light of the uselessness of ranking various groups on jerkishness.

[Kit Whitfield]

@Ruby: you see, that the thing. I don't think the discussion would necessarily have to be 'aren't atheists just big jerks'. I think that's an unfair oversimplification.

It seems to me that you're saying that even if it were true that the atheist movement had a particular problem with sexism - and that is theoretically possible, because some cultures are more aggressively misogynist than others - it's something that mustn't be discussed or investigated because some people would use it against atheists as a whole.

I just can't accept that that's a reasonable way to approach problems.

I see it this way: either the atheist movement is particularly misogynistic or it isn't. If it isn't, then the best way of dealing with accusations is to look into it, find out that it's not true, and thus be able to say so. If it is, then not looking into it won't make it go away, and the problem will remain.

Either way, there clearly is a serious problem, and one that I think bears investigation as part of cleaning house. It rather troubles me that you haven't said anything to condemn the sexual harassers or sympathise with the girl on the receiving end, but have gone straight to 'Let's not even ask that question.' As you say, 'Something is a problem, deal with it.' But I think that automatically dismissing people who say 'I find it particularly bad here' as game players lends itself more to not dealing with it.

When a woman complains of hostile environments, very often her complaint is greeted by people who dismiss the content and attack her for saying it at all. This happens everywhere, not just in the atheist communities, but it's a problem wherever it happens, and I'm having trouble with your position for that reason.

[Kit Whitfield]

Oops, crossed posts. Thank you for dropping 'playing.'

[Mmy]

How about turning the conversation somewhat? From "which forum is most oppressive to which group of people" to -- "which group of people in the world are actually the most physically and legislatively oppressed? Which group face violence at home and at work, in the public sphere and the private sphere?

TRIGGER WARNING FOR THE REST OF THIS COMMENT:

Women get acid thrown in their faces for showing themselves in public.
Women get their finders cut off going to school.
Women get raped / mutilated / brutalized as a conscious weapon of terror and war.
Women get denied health care.
Women get food last, shelter last, protection last.

People who are QUILTBAGS (there is some disagreement as to the best way to phrase that) are brutalized, tortured and killed. They are denied work, safety, and food.

People of colour in the United States are legally harassed. They are denied the right to vote. They are denied the protections of law. They are deported from their own country. They are stopped on the street, harassed for existing, railroaded by the legal system, emprisoned and executed more than "white" Americans.

There are people of colour and women and people who are QUILTBAGS who are (in the meat world) physically threatened and who go to the police and not only do they not receive protection they don't even receive sympathy.

I have been an out of the closet atheist for far longer than many people in this group have been alive. I have been offended by politicians and pastors. I have felt some degree of discrimination. But on the whole I have lived a comfortable, protected, privileged life. And so have most of the atheists I have even met in "meat life" or online.

It sickens me to see fellow atheists (male, white, well educated, North American, financially stable) respond to the comparatively small amount of oppression they have experienced by lashing out at other people. It shows a lack of empathy, sympathy and understanding. And it makes me wonder if they aren't just another group of privileged people who want to claim oppression as a way of justifying their own bad behaviour.

[Ruby]

Kit: It seems to me that you're saying that even if it were true that the atheist movement had a particular problem with sexism - and that is theoretically possible, because some cultures are more aggressively misogynist than others - it's something that mustn't be discussed or investigated because some people would use it against atheists as a whole.

I just can't accept that that's a reasonable way to approach problems.

You don't need to accept it, because that isn't anything like what I've been saying. I've been saying that this kind of ranking is unproductive, though depressingly common.

I see it this way: either the atheist movement is particularly misogynistic or it isn't. If it isn't, then the best way of dealing with accusations is to look into it, find out that it's not true, and thus be able to say so. If it is, then not looking into it won't make it go away, and the problem will remain.

Sure. No argument there. Again, I've never said that people shouldn't "look into it." I think we should try to fix problems no matter where they arise. And if someone can show me how ranking people as "awful because of misogyny" and "slightly less awful than atheists" actually helps in that endeavor, I will happily do that as well.

Either way, there clearly is a serious problem, and one that I think bears investigation as part of cleaning house. It rather troubles me that you haven't said anything to condemn the sexual harassers or sympathise with the girl on the receiving end, but have gone straight to 'Let's not even ask that question.'

First, I have never said, "Let's not ask the question." Second, if you don't know by now, after my years here, that I condemn sexual harassment, then I'm afraid I just don't know what to tell you.

As you say, 'Something is a problem, deal with it.' But I think that automatically dismissing people who say 'I find it particularly bad here' as game players lends itself more to not dealing with it.

And I find your assertion that atheists "say" they're oppressed is dismissive, too.

When a woman complains of hostile environments, very often her complaint is greeted by people who dismiss the content and attack her for saying it at all. This happens everywhere, not just in the atheist communities, but it's a problem wherever it happens, and I'm having trouble with your position for that reason.

You have problems with a position that I do not hold. I am objecting to this strange ranking that is becoming so common, not to complaints of misogyny.

[Ruby]

mmy: How about turning the conversation somewhat? From "which forum is most oppressive to which group of people" to -- "which group of people in the world are actually the most physically and legislatively oppressed? Which group face violence at home and at work, in the public sphere and the private sphere?

So, wait, we're going to drop ranking forums and start just ranking groups? Great.

This is why I have become increasingly uncomfortable discussing atheism here.

[Kit Whitfield]

Okay, first of all:

And I find your assertion that atheists "say" they're oppressed is dismissive, too.

I think you're attributing more than I meant to a single comment.

The sentence you're objecting to is, I assume: 'saying, "Look, you're actually worse than the people you say oppress you," is an attempt to get their attention.' This sentence is not a statement that all claims of atheist oppression are false reports. I do not think they are. I said 'say' because it was an imaginary response to an imaginary statement to the effect of 'We're oppressed, so we can't be oppressors.' The word 'say', as I used it, was only intended to convey that atheist oppression is sometimes raised in conversations as an attempt to shut down an important issue. (Which is, of course, something that happens in many places, especially when it comes to challenging misogyny or bigotry.)

Basically, 'say' was an attempt to convey a conversation in motion rather than an attempt to deny the problems atheists face.

I would also add that for me 'atheists' is a problematic category when we're talking about oppression. Women face oppression in pretty much every society, but atheists vary in their experience a great deal depending on where they live. In secular Europe, being an atheist is nothing like the problem it is in Christian America, for instance. To say 'atheists are oppressed' is, to me, too general a statement. I'm not going to argue for a minute that an atheist faces serious problems in Bible Belt America, but to say 'atheists' is to invoke every non-believer in the world and, well, I think it's more complicated than that.

--

First, I have never said, "Let's not ask the question." Second, if you don't know by now, after my years here, that I condemn sexual harassment, then I'm afraid I just don't know what to tell you.

Well, you seem to be opposed to the question being asked in this case. If you're not, it's not coming across in your posts.

As to the fact that you condemn sexual harassment - well, as a seasoned feminist, I'm sure you'll be familiar with the situation where a man has it pointed out to him that he's said something discomfiting to women, and responds by either saying that his bona fides in the past mean he can't be doing anything wrong now, or else that people should already know he doesn't do whatever bad thing is being discussed. If we don't let it fly when a man does it - and I don't think we should - I think women need to observe the same standard. Right now, you are coming across as resisting any discussion of whether the atheist movement has a particular problem with women, and that makes me nervous. If you are willing for such a discussion to take place, as I say, it's not coming across.

--

This is why I have become increasingly uncomfortable discussing atheism here.

Look, I think we need to tackle this. It's felt to me for some time that whenever the subject comes up, people polarise into two groups, one side feeling that atheists' problems with bigots are being minimised and the other side feeling that atheists are demanding special circumstances. I think we need to sort this out. Can we try to set aside antagonism and see if we can work out a win-win?

[Samantha C]

so speaking of atheism-in-general, what ever happened to the 101 post? Did I miss it? I remember submitting something to it, I remember it being delayed, but I don't remember it ever actually going up.

[MercuryBlue]

Samantha: It's not gone up yet. Because, I think, of conversations like this one. Which I feel I should contribute to but I can't find words.

[Mmy]

@Samantha: In addition to MercuryBlue's comment -- there were (last I counted) 14 different submissions some of which had no edits required and others which have had ongoing discussions with edits.

[Ruby]

Kit: Well, you seem to be opposed to the question being asked in this case. If you're not, it's not coming across in your posts.

And if you can point to anything in my posts that remotely suggests that questions regarding misogyny should not be asked, then fine. If not, then I can only conclude that you are reading into my posts things that are not there. All I have been objecting to is the ranking of groups. (Which always ends with the atheists at the bottom. Funny, that.)

Look, I think we need to tackle this. It's felt to me for some time that whenever the subject comes up, people polarise into two groups, one side feeling that atheists' problems with bigots are being minimised and the other side feeling that atheists are demanding special circumstances. I think we need to sort this out. Can we try to set aside antagonism and see if we can work out a win-win?

We can try. I don't even think it's a problem with minimizing. I think it's a problem with the starting point for most discussions of atheism, wherein we start from atheists being assumed to be racist/misogynist/priviliged jerks, and moving from there.

[Kish]

Look, I think we need to tackle this. It's felt to me for some time that whenever the subject comes up, people polarise into two groups, one side feeling that atheists' problems with bigots are being minimised and the other side feeling that atheists are demanding special circumstances. I think we need to sort this out. Can we try to set aside antagonism and see if we can work out a win-win?

Not addressing the original post here, just this.

I think you're right, but I don't know how it can be solved, because it looks to me like the difference in perspective here is fundamental and irreconcilable. From past threads, I don't believe there's universal agreement here even that atheists in the 21st century count as "oppressed" at all (thinking of some of CaryB's bombastic pronouncements).

[AnaMardoll]

I am not an atheist, I identify as a Wiccan. A fair percentage of Wiccans are not raised Wiccan. Quite a few of the community come from another place first -- usually Christian families. I *think* atheism is similar in that only a minority of the (American) atheist community is explicitly "raised" atheist.

One thing I've noticed is that we conversion-Wiccans tend to split up in a few identifiable groups. A lot of us have residual anger/frustration with a (American, Christian) community that treated us very poorly for our failure to conform. But the Wiccan community is really deeply tied into the 60's nature-love-child-hippie stuff that popularized the religion in the mainstream eye in the first place, so the nurturing is a huge draw for some of us, either because it fills a need or it fits an ideology. In theory, the Nurturers are there to help the Angries to kind of let go the appropriate-but-painful angry that they have over their pasts, if that's what they want.

I noticed in the wake of that [TW] reddit post that a lot of very sensible people were saying "well, those weren't real atheists". I think that's very possible (it's a public forum and I can imagine that a lot of trolls might enjoy posing as atheists because they've conceived that Atheist = Asshole), but I also think it might be more complicated than that. The American atheist community seems to have a majority of white males -- which means that they've got a lot of privilege in some ways but a lot of oppression in other ways, what with cultural attitudes toward atheists. I think that when a previously-privileged group is suddenly oppressed, it might be a natural response to oppress in turn -- for instance, women!

I think this may also be relevant with geek communities, which are also predominantly privileged (white, male) and yet unprivileged (geek stereotypes).

It seems to me that an answer to all this might be to adopt the Wicca model of nurturing people away from anger and into acceptance, but I'm not sure that this is a model that can be applied well in these cases. Anger and non-acceptance have legitimate roles in changing things that need changing, after all. Possibly the answer is to set everyone down into privilege 101 and enforce the Wheaton rule (Don't be a dick.).

I would think, though, that the answer will have to come less from "within" and more from the leadership. I know PZ Meyer tries to be an ally, but the rest of the atheist movement leaders seem... from my personal opinion... more interested in promoting themselves than in growing a community. YMMV. :)

[AnaMardoll]

Adding: Not sure why I felt the need to share any of the above, but it's there. I think what I'm trying to say is that while I don't think all atheists are racist/misogynist/jerks, I do think that mixing White! Male! privilege with Religious! marginalization probably results in some lashing out from time to time that -- ideally -- would be handled by wise, caring leaders who understand the anger, but know how to redirect it effectively.

And there would be puppies. Ideally.

[Kit Whitfield]

Ruby, here's the thing. I feel uncomfortable in these discussions because you come across as demanding that everyone agree atheists are more hated than anyone else and accusing people of bigotry if they won't agree. That is very hard to deal with. I feel like you're hostile and suspicious towards others here to an unfair extent.

And, since we're having this discussion, it's not just atheism. You insisted mothers had more privilege than non-mothers and were dismissive to women who disagreed. I feel like you've developed a habit of ranking oppressions, putting your owns groups in the most oppressed spot, and acting oppressed if people don't support your claims.

You accuse others of list making, but in the last few months I have experienced a strong sense of competitiveness from your posts, and dismissive ness of the problems of others.

I like you, but I have been finding you prickly and competitive while accusing others of being that way. You say you feel unsafe, which may be why, but you aren't exactly safe-feeling yourself right now.

[Lonespark]

I was just thinking that maybe, for a lot of people, atheist/skeptic/freethinker type forums are where they encounter less safe spaces...I know that is true for many people I know IRL and online.

I can think off the top of my head of many places on the net at least as awful as that reddit thread. They were all places I went voluntarily. But they weren't places I went looking to feel safe or make friends...It does happen fairly often on political sites that aren't explicitly feminist, and sites that discuss gender issues that aren't explicitly feminist...generally unmoderated or lightly moderated spaces, but I suppose it could also be an issue with the moderation focus in some places. I can see how for many people, and maybe women or feminist-identified women especially, atheist/skeptic/freethinker type spaces might be where they most often encounter that type of behavior, because that's where they most often encounter that kind of space?

[Lonespark]

...which doesn't at all speak to the question of why, or how to change it. I guess maybe I was thinking the why had to do with commonalities being about what you don't believe rather than what you do, so that communities include people across the political spectrum...but then I have no idea how that compares with anything else it might profitably be compared to...fandom? I don't know if that' a useful comparison, but unless we have stats or some kind of data, how could we compare in a meaningful way?

[Ruby]

Wow, okay, Kit.

I'm not demanding atheists get special treatment. I'm hoping that atheists can at least start out on an equal footing with other groups, and not be preemptively assumed to be racists or misogynists.

As to the comments on my posting style in general, I would prefer this not get personal. I didn't realize that "having this discussion" would result in that. I will do it if we must, but I would rather we focus on the issue at hand rather than personal grievances.

[Ruby]

And that said, I am going out for the day and most of the evening. Thus I will not be ignoring anyone, but will get back tonight.

[Lonespark]

It's interesting (if you're not personally involved, otherwise it's more frustrating and tricky) comparing the difficulties experienced by atheists vs. religious minorities. There are so many different prejudices people can hold regarding religious beliefs and practices. In a lot of cases it "You're our flavor of RTC or you're going to burn so we're obligated to harass you into conversion." But there's plenty of "We'll grudgingly tolerate everyone but the Witches," or "I'm witholding judgement about everyone who's not Muslim," or "I have an open mind toward all religions...wait, what, animal sacrifice? That's barbaric!" or "Religion is fine as long as you don't take it too seriously."

I kind of agree with the last one myself, for certain values of "too seriously," but my family and community often seem to associate "too seriously," with "spending money on celebrations, ever," "singing things that don't sound exactly like our favorite hymns," and of course "being from a different culture and/or race." In that context, people (and yes I am looking at you, Unitarians, but not just you) can be much more comfortable with atheists who are culturally or economically similar to themselves than they are with believers, even in their own religion or denomination, who are outside that comfort zone.