One of the most persistent and annoying double standards which atheists have to face is the broad acceptability of religious expression in society vs. the stigma attached to any sort of atheist expression. Religious believers enjoy the expectation that they can talk about religion and inject religion into conversations any time, anywhere, for any reason. Atheists, in contrast, are rude and intolerant for even mentioning their atheism, never mind disagreeing with or objecting to what they hear from believers.
We see an example of this in a recent letter written to Miss Manners:
Dear Miss Manners: I am an atheist, and this is occasionally the source of mild social awkwardness. Normally, of course, I do not broadcast my beliefs without solicitation, but occasionally I am asked where I go to church or invited to attend a service at another’s church.
I work with a number of civic organizations, including places of worship, so this sort of question or request is usually well-intentioned chitchat from someone with whom I am working on a project.
Somehow, the simple and direct, “I choose not to worship a deity,” seems as inappropriate for casual conversation as questions about one’s religious beliefs. I would greatly appreciate a simple and direct way to decline such an invitation and nip such questioning in the bud.
The second area is how to respond when passing comments are made that imply a belief in a god, as if one were discussing the weather, such as “He’s in a better place now,” “The Lord works in mysterious ways,” or, “I know Jesus will take care of this for me.”
I know the speaker is expecting a smile and a nod, but if I consider these beliefs untrue, offensive, or ridiculous, how can I respond in a simple way that does not sound strident, open me up to being evangelized or invite the beginning of a theological debate?
Source: Buffalo News
Although this person's experiences may be more numerous than the average, they are still similar to what many atheists experience from time to time. We all are made to feel that we should politely and respectfully nod to whatever religious believers have to say without feeling free to respond in kind. So what does Judith Martin — Miss Manners — think is the most mannerly response for atheists in such situations?
Gentle Reader: Please keep in mind that the idea here would not be to declare your own convictions, a habit you find objectionable in others, but to deflect the topic without seeming to acquiesce.
Miss Manners suggests separating the proselytizers from those who may be merely repeating figures of speech.
In any case, the comments of the second group should be treated as if they were good wishes. Similarly, the inquiry about where you go to church should be treated as a casual social question.
“I choose not to worship a deity” is indeed pompous, and also challenging. You need only say casually, “I’m not a churchgoer.”
I find it curious that Judith Martin says that the writer finds statements of conviction to be "objectionable in others" — where was that said? Perhaps it was made explicit in a part of the letter not published due to space constraints, but the only thing that appears to be implicitly described as "objectionable" is how often the writer has to face this kind of situation without being able to respond. So a declaration of convictions by the atheist cannot be excluded on the basis of the premise that the atheist finds this objectionable in others.
At least Judith Martin recognizes that atheists have an interest in deflecting religious conversations without appearing to acquiesce to its premises — to not appear to agree with religious beliefs and theism. Unfortunately, Miss Manners seems to think that this can be achieved by adopting the label "not a churchgoer." The fact is, a person can be a theist and even sometimes religious without also being a churchgoer.
So the practical effect of Judith Martin's advice is to leave the impression that one may be a theist and perhaps even a Christian in a way that allows religious believers to talk about their religion as always. In the end, atheism remains hidden as if it were a secret that one should be ashamed of while religion retains its privileged status. The closet door remains shut and atheists remain silent while ignorance, suspicion, and fear are allowed free reign. All in the name of manners.
In regards to some people, leaving that impression may, in their mind, also opens the door to further attempts to invite you to their church or their religion. Many will feel that they now have an opportunity to “save” you, bring you back to the “light” or just to show you that not all churches are as bad as the one they will likely assume must have caused you to leave in the first place.
Granted, telling them that you are an atheist might invoke the same reaction, but at least all involved will start off knowing where everyone stands and the atheist will not have to spend time being evasive about the subject or appearing to be ashamed about being an atheist. If the end result will potentially be revealing one’s status as an atheist anyway, the time spent evading will only serve to cement many of the various myths about atheists in the mind of the believer. It will probably also give them the impression that you feel remorseful about your position and drive them harder to “save” you.
I find it curious that Judith Martin says that the writer finds statements of conviction to be “objectionable in others” — where was that said?
She probably infered it from “but if I consider these beliefs untrue, offensive, or ridiculous”.
If “I don’t go to church, I am an atheist” feels to confrontational you could try “I am not a Christian”. Many PC Christians will “have a go” at converting an atheist but wouldn’t dare offend a faith holder of a different cast.
Austin, I’m not inclined to be so critical of Miss Manners here, regarding the first issue. Now, I’m an agnostic atheist, so I hope this is taken as friendly feedback. The writer did ask for a phrase other than the phrase “I choose not to worship a deity.” I think she got it right that said response is in fact pompous and challenging in the circumstance the writer describes. (In some other scenario, I might think otherwise.) I think she got it wrong when she said to respond with “I’m not a churchgoer,” as I see that as inviting a follow up of “Oh, why not?” Instead, I would have opted for “I’m not much of a religious person.” That phrase keeps it light, but it’s direct as well.
I think her response was weak and ineffective on the second issue, though. I treat such offhanded sayings as good wishes myself, though I’m myself am often lost for words as to what to say in such a case.
Erkenntnis- The phrase “I’m not much of a religious person” is likely to invite the “Oh, why not?” follow up as well. Many, if not most, religious people think that the only reason someone could have for not going to church or being religious is that they’ve had a bad experience with it at some point and will want to point out that not all churches or religious people are bad. A better response, if one wishes to avoid follow up questions, might be “I prefer not to discuss religious matters.” or “I feel religious opinions are best kept private.”
Mind you, I do live in an area where one would be considered far less an anomaly if they were 15 feet tall, covered in bright blue fur, had only one eye located in the back of their head and wearing a paisley sundress and ballerina slippers than if they did not belong to a religion, especially of the Christian variety.
I actually do not disagree with miss manners on this issue…the writer was asking for advice about how to deal with casual social situations politely without embarrassing the person asking the question. I think most people ask such questions (where do you go to church, etc, etc) out of curiosity, wanting to get to know someone better, or simply just making conversation. Intent is very important, and I don’t think a well-intentioned question deserves a heavy-handed response. However, if the questioner were to persist with judgmental or prying questions, then all bets are off – I don’t believe one has any obligation to continue to be polite to someone who is clearly rude. (Unless it’s your boss’ wife or something and in that case you may just have to suck it up and be political. Not fair, but, then neither is life.)
I go with: “I’m not a Christian”.
For the most part I do not like to get into discussions because I am not patient with blind theism.
I feel most Religionists are simply unable to face their own mortality and that is immature and illogical.
Someone on Fark said this:
“Faith, or the lack of it, should be a personal matter right up there with your sexual preferences. In other words, whatever you believe is disgusting compared to my own belief system, and I really wish you’d keep it to yourself.”
For many religious folk, the idea that someone does NOT share their faith, or some flavor of it, causes the mind to reel. “What?? You don’t… believe in Jesus? Or the Abrahamic God? Or any gods at all?”
To this they MUST either allow their faith to be shaken or they must figure out just what is wrong with YOU. They perceive your lack of belief as an attack upon theirs. Either they are wrong, or you are. If they’ve invested a great deal into their faith, you’re threatening their entire way of thinking/feeling/perceiving the world.
You’re the one eyed man in the land of the blind.
For me, the mutual exclusivity of religion (only one COULD be right, but they ALL can be wrong), was one of the turn offs.
She may not have done the best job of it, but I got the feeling she was telling the writer to “take the high ground”.
i just tell people that im an atheist if they ask me
When asked what church you go to, saying “I don’t go to church, I’m an atheist” is no more offensive than saying “I’m Catholic and I go to St. Marks” or “I’m Baptist and I go to Landover Baptist”. (Yes, I know Landover is a Poe, but I use it just for an example name)
frankly, religion’s had a coast too long with everyone assuming that everyone else is religious
what exactly is wrong with being polite but firm?
kinda like, not everyone is straight, and yes, it’s good for them to know that too.
I’m with Mikko.
If they persist with more questions (critical, likely) about my atheism, then THEY are being rude, not me. They can just change the subject, as my response ended that line of questioning very quickly.
I have honestly been quite successful, and maintained friendships by stating that I am an atheist. I remain friendly even if they are shocked. It’s more difficult for some to accept than others, but I find this sort of honesty to be more mannered than it is to be vague.
I like to say, “God really doesn’t want me to believe in him.”
I agree with Mike (13). When such a question is asked of me, I always respond “I am an atheist and I have no religious beliefs”.
While I find that my response may cause a mild shock to some people, christians and non-christians alike, they usually respond with something like “oh, ok, that’s fair enough” and that is normally the end of the matter.
Anyone who then chooses to proceed with the matter by questioning why I am an atheist, will be asked why they are asking. If their reason is one of genuine inquiry, then a conversation may ensue about belief and non-belief, but if there is a suggestion of hostility towards my atheism, I will simply say something like “you believe in things that I simply cannot believe in and I do not intend to argue these matters with you.”
I am lucky to live in a country (Australia) where our latest census (2006) showed that close to 20% of the population is atheist, agnostic, humanist, or some other “no-religion” denomination, so the level of tolerance to beliefs and non-beliefs is much higher here than, say, in the US.
I have to say I’m sick of being told that being an atheist is something we have to be ashamed of or that WE have to bend over backwards so as not to offend someone’s oh-so-delicate sensibilities. Screw that.
If someone asks me what church I go to, I say, “I don’t go to church; I’m an atheist.” If that somehow manages to offend, that is their problem and not mine.
oh pleezee. this is sTUPID! my god people are just people.quit suing over this stupid stupid subject. people are just sue happy. makes me real sad! stop it alredy!
seashell2284. Aww! Are you sad? How tragic. Would you like a lollipop?
What about all those atheists who are being pressured into being silent because of some ridiculous idea of “good manners”, while being surrounded by people who are happy to loudly state that atheists are immoral scum?
Do you think that might make THEM a bit sad? Do you think that might be something that would be worth getting ANGRY about? You know, seeing as it’s an injustice. Or do you think that, in this situation, atheists who DARE to complain are the ones being aggressive and rude? Somehow I think you do.
Incidentally, well done for complaining about suing in comments to an article that’s not about suing. A masterclass of critical thinking there.
Atheists are the worst possible argument for atheism.
From Miss Manners:
“I choose not to worship a deity” is indeed pompous, and also challenging. You need only say casually, “I’m not a churchgoer.”
Face it, she is right about this. The conversation is not an opportunity for your memorized mini-sermon about atheism. Consider the likelihood that no one cares what you think.
Oh, imagine a world where all religious theists took this to heart. There’d be no church billboards, no religious billboards on roads, no Christian bus campaigns, no religious websites or blogs, no faith schools (because children don’t care what you think, obviously), no door-knocking evangelists, no Christian internet trolls, no movements attempting to establish theocratic rule, no officialy theocratic countries anywhere worldwide, no employers who’d fire their employees for not having the right imaginary friend, no men in Islamic countries who’d throw acid in the faces of girls for the crime of learning to read, the Bamiyan Buddhas would still be standing, Theo Van Gogh and Hitoshi Igarashi would still be alive… And, of course, no religious theists would ever use a conversation as an opportunity for a memorised mini-sermon about their religious sect of preference. What a world THAT would be…
Anyway, we all know it’s the ATHEISTS who are the real villains, though. They’ve WRITTEN BOOKS! They’ve EXPRESSED THEIR OPINIONS PUBLICLY! The FIENDS!
Mr. Barratt, I mentioned “memorized mini-sermon”, and you were quick to provide one.
My point, and Judith Martin’s, is that a smug, condescending response does no one any good. And you made the point better than I did.
If you can’t express yourself without a spittle-flecked rant, I don’t care what you think.
I resent that, my rant was entirely spontaneous.
And way to respond without addressing any point I made. Concern troll fail.
Oh, the irony!
And yet you take the time to respond! We’re going to need a new irony meter, you broke the last one!
Is there any way an atheist could possibly express themselves that you wouldn’t dismiss as merely a “spittle-flecked rant”? Somehow I doubt it. All the things I mentioned are real things that real religious theists really do, and nothing any atheists do is remotely as bad. Yet here you are, choosing to criticise the ATHEISTS, for doing nothing remotely as bad as what religious theists regularly do. Sort out your own twisted priorities before daring to advise others about theirs.
By the way, it’s Dr Barratt.
How so?
So, stating that one is an atheist is a “mini-sermon”? How so?
They cared enough to ask, but not to hear a truthful answer?
Except that it was in a different context. So, I’m guessing you don’t think that context is ever relevant?
Unless it’s you giving the response, right?
…take lessons from Chuck Calthrop about how to be condescending and fact-free?
Wow! Quite a collection of knee-jerk claptrap. Let’s see how much I can type in 180 seconds.
Keep the irony meter handy, it’s still spinning.
My observation is atheists who trumpet their ideology, especially unprompted, come off as pissy, defensive and closed-minded, all the things they accuse religious people of being. Example: Dawkins was a great biologist, and a superb science writer, now he’s a boring poleicist. The few people who actually read his last book can attest to this. Christopher Hitchens likewise, is preaching to the converted and persuading nobody, and his formerly pretty good work has disappeared.
Here’s some free advice: Give up on saying, “I’m an atheist because I’m smart.” Newton, Leibniz, Euler, Wittgenstein and Francis Collins (see genome.gov) were / are much smarter than you, and completely disagree with you. A few more facts: Dawkins, Hitchens and this blog have the burden of demonstrating that atheism is somehow beneficial to human beings, that it promotes ethical behavior, happiness, better dental hygiene, anything. So far you haven’t proven anything except that your opinions are what they are. Proving a tautology is easy for most people, but you seem to have trouble even doing that.
Give up on this too: “Theo van Gogh was killed, that proves all religion is evil.” Some wacko murdered an artist. It has nothing to do with whatever point you are trying to make. My disappointment with atheists is they don’t argue like grownups, as the Doctor’s comment above illustrates. My keyboard has capslock too.
My point is you’re losing your audience. If the best you can do is to go into a self-serious hissyfit when someone asks you about church, you deserve it. You’re just as humorless and dogmatic as the group you are trying to attack.
Not sure I’ll look in here again, the signal-to-noise ratio is very poor and the amount of original thought would fit in a shot glass with plenty of room for all the facts presented in this blog. But I’m curious what Dr Bartlett’s degree is in. Clearly not history, English language or critical thinking. Maybe an online doctorate in aromatherapy? “I don’t care what you think” means this is clearly a screaming match, completely pointless, like atheism itself. I leave you to it.
That was 270 seconds, probably 240 too much.
In your effort to be brief, you forgot to support your accusations. I’m sure it was just an oversight, yes?
I’m eager to see you demonstrate how atheists are different from everyone else in this.
So, he stopped being a great biologists somehow? And is he only supposed to write things that interest you, personally?
So you’re saying that it spent so much time on the bestseller list because people were only buying it to not read it?
Has anyone here said that?
Why? Or rather, why any more burden than demonstrating that disbelief in elves is beneficial?
FYI, atheism isn’t an ideology, belief system, philosophy, or anything similar that can promote anything, good or bad. It’s like theism in this.
You haven’t asked for proof of anything. Complaining about failing to get something you’ve neither asked for nor demonstrated that you deserve is childish, to say the least.
And who here has said this?
FYI: telling people to stop doing something that they haven’t done demonstrates a lack of interest in facts or reality.
First you’ll have to instruct me on what point I’m supposed to be making before you can tell me what is and is not relevant to it.
Since you presumably think you’re arguing like a grown-up, would you appreciate having the same standards applied to you?
Who’s my audience?
Feel free to point out where anyone got into a “self-serious hissyfit.”
…because I’m afraid that I’ll get asked all sorts of uncomfortable questions about supporting my claims which I just know I won’t be able to answer.
Or it means that you have no thoughts worth caring about? Generally speaking, unsupported claims and baseless accusations aren’t much worth caring about or taking seriously. It’s up to you to make your ideas or opinions worthy of respect or serious consideration but thus far, you haven’t really tried. You demonstrate no knowledge or understanding of how to construct your own sound arguments or how to evaluate the arguments and positions of others. All you do is make accusation and assert positions which you can’t or won’t support. How ironic that you would, in the process, accuse others of failing to produce original thoughts. You seem to be blessed with an almost total lack of basic self-awareness.
Indeed, many people are able to post fact-free, groundless accusations in far less time than you required. You’ll need to work on that.
As Austin has already pointed out, the situation that’s being discussed in this article is a column that tells atheists not to say we’re atheists EVEN WHEN WE’RE ASKED. So that would be prompted. And way to duck every question.
Atheism isn’t an ideology, it’s lack of belief in gods.
The rest of your post just shows that you live in your own little fantasy world. In this world, Dawkins’ last book (I’m going to guess you mean The God Delusion and not The Oxford Book of Science Writing) sold phenomenally well worldwide and has been translated into many languages.
Dawkins has a huge section on his website called “converts corner” where there are pages and pages of messages from people convinced by Dawkins to rethink their views on gods. Both Dawkins and Hitchens have toured the US in support of their books and they’ve written about how overwhelmed they were by the support they received, with autitoriums filled with people, each of whom thought they were the only local atheist, even in the “bible belt”.
Do you have any reason at all to make us think all your concern trolling about them “preaching to the converted” and not convincing anyone is anything other than wishful thinking on your part? A lot of people have made this point, and Dawkins actually deals with it in TGD, but I’ve never seen any reason to believe there’s anything to it.
By selling lots of books and speaking out, and encouraging other atheists to speak out the “new atheists” have succeeded in propagating a movement that is entirely positive and empowering, especially to the atheists in the US who’ve been told they should just shut up for far too long.
Nobody says this though, do they? What atheists do is outline what they think and why, and because theists can’t effectively argue against them they resort to concern troll tactics, personal attacks, attempts to dismiss the atheists without having to argue with them and appeals to authority, just like you’re doing now.
And as for Francis Collins, I’ve read The Language of God. Collins is a perfect example that even the smartest people can believe the most ridiculous things for the stupidest reasons. Frozen waterfall looks pretty, therefore Jesus. That’s Collins’ conversion story.
But that’s not what I said, is it? Are you even capable of accurately representing what somebody who disagrees with you thinks? I said that if theists followed your rule that “no one cares what you think”, Theo van Gogh would still be alive and lots of other religiously-inspired travesties wouldn’t happen. And you TOTALLY dodged that point. Theists DON’T follow your rule, and are FAR worse than any atheists, so criticising atheists and defending theists as you’ve been doing shows your priorities are twisted.
Evidence please. Or is this just something you reckon? Is it just something you think? Because maybe you should “consider the likelihood that no one cares what you think”.
And again, you totally misrepresent what you talk about. If you wonder why atheists get angry, it’s because of people like you. This article wasn’t about a “hissy fit”, it was about atheists being told not to even say they’re atheists when asked. But anti-atheist bigots always seem perfectly happy to construe the most innocuous atheist expression as a heinous attack on everything that’s good and right in the world, so why would you be any different?
WHAT GROUP? There’s just two kinds of people are there? Atheists and another unnamed group of people, the good guys? Who never ever get angry, never do anything wrong and would never do anything so crass as to let people know what their views are about things? This world you live in is very strange.
SPOING! You’ve broken my backup irony meter!
I repeat, concern troll fail. Weak.
Chuck really flecked the ole spittle in his rant at (24).
This reminds me of what happened to me in, oh, 1966, I believe. It was a time when people wore buttons with slogans on them. “God is alive and well and living in Argentina” was a popular one. I thought it was time for another point of view, so I went in search of an atheist button, couldn’t find one (even in New York’s Greenwich Village), so bought a button making kit, and made my own.
My button said “God Isn’t,” and I wore it everywhere. It amazed me how many strangers approached me angrily, and told me that I had “no right” to wear my button. This from people wearing crosses, etc. I laughed at every one of them, which didn’t go over too well.
I have never been ashamed of being an atheist. I will not apologize for it. I will not keep my mouth shut about it. If anyone doesn’t like it, that’s their problem, not mine.
@Chuck Calthorp (24):
If you bother to come back here, a bit of information you should be aware of-
This is a direct quote from Wikipedia:
“Theodoor “Theo” van Gogh (Arabic pronunciation: [ˈteːjoː vɑnˈɣɔx]) (23 July 1957 – 2 November 2004) was a Dutch film director, film producer, columnist, author and actor. He was the great-grandson of Theo van Gogh, the brother of painter Vincent van Gogh. Van Gogh was well known for his criticism of Islam. On 2 November 2004 he was murdered by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Muslim extremist, after van Gogh with collaboration from Ayaan Hirsi Ali released Submission, a film critical of the treatment of women within the Islamic world. The last film he completed before his death, 06/05, is a fictional version of the assassination of politician Pim Fortuyn.”
He was not the artist – Vincent Van Gogh – get your facts straight. That’s the least you can do when you’re spewing venom. Yes, it was a religious assassination, Islam to be sure, but no more heinous than Roeder’s (a bible believing, Christian right wingnut) assassination of Dr. Tiller. Religion does poison everything. Hitchens is right on with that observstion.
Thanks The Sojourner! I also just found out George Clinton of Parliament Funkadelic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Clinton_(musician) and Bill Clinton, 42nd President of the United States of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_clinton) are NOT the same person.
“I’m not much of a religious person” is likely to invite the “Oh, why not?” follow up as well.
How I would relish such a reply, because it would give me the opening to state my case for atheism!
I try not to be confrontational, so I often ignore outright statements like: God has been good to us,” or “God knows best.”
Unfortunately, I cannot remember even one instance of anyone openly querying my unbelief when they find out, which would give me the opening I have long been waiting for.
Relatives are different, of course! I told my siblings of my unbelief, but their replies were identical: “I pity you because you have no hope. I will pray for you.”
I told my children, and my son smiled, while my daughter just stared at me and said nothing.
I also eventually told my son-in-law, whose late father, earlier in his life, had been a minister, but he said nothing that I might construe as encouragement to state my case.
Sometimes I lose it, and say to myself: Why should I remain quiet, while others openly refer to their belief? So I quietly, but adamantly, bring up the subject of unbelief, although I know I’m skating on thin ice, and I am usually met with stony silence.
I have yet to meet a believer who has asked me to explain my stance. They just plain don’t want to know!
I am more of a pragmatic person and could provide them with actual instances a blatant mistakes, inconsistencies and contradictions in their holy book, but they would rather remain in their own little foggy world of myth and make-believe!
If anyone came to me and said he/she could provide proof that their god existed, I would listen out of curiosity, which is the beginning of all knowledge.
Christians, and I suppose believers of all faiths, would rather that I did not prick their little balloon in case it might end their dream of an afterlife.
The “promise” of an afterlife is the linchpin that keeps people shackled to whatever brand of religion they follow. Without it, religion would collapse and the world would be a much better and safer place.
Actually, I do say that I’m an atheist because I’m smart.
But I’m also an atheist because I wasn’t indoctrinated into a religion during my infancy. And because I’m in the “rational” side of the “rational/emotional” decision making scale. And because I’m relatively well educated. And because I haven’t had any emotional traumas that couldn’t be dealt with within my existing family and social network. And because I don’t have other irrational or supernatural beliefs. And because I don’t have a higher than average fear of death.
Wow, you sure have to dodge a lot of bullets to have any shot at being an atheist.
@ Al Lister:
My point was that Theo VanGogh was assassinated for his views against Islamic misogynistic mistreatment of women. Killed by an Islamic religious fanatic. Van Gogh the artist, had nothing to do with it, except as his ancestor. Those were the facts.
I got the impression Calthorp hadn’t a clue as to what that was about.
And your point is…?