http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/12/05/atheists.christmas/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
The above article reports on the theft of an atheist sign from the Legislative Building in Olympia, WA. The sign, which has since been returned after being found in a ditch, reads:
“At this season of the Winter Solstice may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”
The sign was placed at the Legislative Building by an advocacy group called the Freedom From Religion Foundation in protest to a nativity scene placed nearby. Co-founder, and former Evangelical preacher, Dan Barker argued the importance of the sign citing the fact that approximately 25% of Washingtonians do not affiliate with any religion.
He went on to say that the sign celebrating the solstice is actually a more authentic expression of the meaning of December.
“Most people think December is for Christians and view our signs as an intrusion, when actually it’s the other way around,” he said. “People have been celebrating the winter solstice long before Christmas. We see Christianity as the intruder, trying to steal the holiday from all of us humans.”
One of the most popular arguments by atheists leveled against religion is that religion is a negative social institution because it’s anti-science and anti-reason. One of Barker’s arguments is that the solstice, a pagan religious celebration is a more primitive, and thus more authentic, expression of December. The formulation of that argument, however, relies on religious logic (which I suppose shouldn’t be surprising coming from an ex-preacher).
The classic Marxist formulation of ideology can be summed up in this statement: “They don’t know it, but they do it.” I think that perfectly captures the way the representatives from the Freedom From Religion Foundation have acted because they have, unintentionally, acted like people with religious conviction.
Compounding the weakness of the argument is Barker’s citation of the statistic that 25 percent of Washingtonians don’t affiliate with a religion and thus deserve representation via the atheist sign; however, just because 25 percent of Washingtonians don’t affiliate with a religion doesn’t mean 25% of Washingtonians are represented by, or would even agree with, the atheist sign placed at Washington’s Legislative Building.
4 Comments
December 7, 2008 at 4:20 am
I enjoyed your post, but your premises do not fit your conclusion, which seems to be that Atheism is merely its own ideology, just like Christianity. This is flat-out false, and is structured by a Christian worldview, such that if you define something on Christianity’s own terms (by ideologizing it through basic, instilled analogy) then you give it a finite essence that may then be reciprocally destroyed (even if Christianity itself engenders this otherness; ie, atheists are just the witches and demons of the 20th/21st century). The cliche is that Atheism is post-ideological. It’s more accurate to think of it as pre-ideological. Similarly, the Christian view is that one Christian speaks for all Christians. Atheism is just the opposite: one atheist speaks for him or herself, and no other. Thus if one speaks of “Atheism” as a coherent thing unto itself, like some sort of 527 group, one has already committed the error of failing to recognize the plurality that is a prior assumption of atheism. Barker doesn’t represent anybody but himself. No one does.
December 7, 2008 at 4:35 pm
“however, just because 25 percent of Washingtonians don’t affiliate with a religion doesn’t mean 25% of Washingtonians are represented by, or would even agree with, the atheist sign placed at Washington’s Legislative Building.”
You are correct. As an atheist myself, I find many of the things on that sign a bit tacky (at the least.)
But I hope that 100% of the people of Washington support the right for that sign to be there. Sadly, that isn’t the case, as at least one person tried to get rid of it illegally.
December 7, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Thanks for your input, Jesse. My experience of atheism has shown me time and again that atheism inevitably bears the marks of the religion it opposes. Granted, atheism isn’t just an obscene other of religion, although at times it may seem that way. Additionally, I’m not trying to define atheism wholly out of a Christian worldview (as I do not ascribe to one) and I do apologize if the post seemed to imply that. I tried to clarify that this post is commenting only on a particular group of atheists, not every atheist.
I think your following statement: “the Christian view is that one Christian speaks for all Christians” should be clarified further because I think it’s as flimsy as the assumption that atheism is a monolithic entity ruled by Richard Dawkins. Christian thought and theology is as varied as atheist thought and atheology; I think the relationship engendered between atheism and Christianity has forced Christianity to, in a sense, become more like atheists in their variety.
December 7, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Morsecode, I agree with you. The sign should not have been stolen.