| Despanan |
01-07-2011 06:05 PM |
Hmmm...
Dude has a point.
While I'm not sure it's feasible to actually eliminate the title of "atheist" from rational non-believers at this time, adopting that label does open us up for all sorts of rhetorical attacks. Theists have also managed to brand that term with a particularly negative connotation as well.
(For instance, when I think "Atheist" the word feels to me to be harsh reds and blacks. When I think "Theist" my brain conjures up greens and blues and whites)
Which is why I think it's better to say that "a government should be primarily non-religious" than "a government should be primarily atheist". They both mean exatly the same thing, yet the latter seems much harsher and more militant.
Sill, those of us who are rational enough to reject supernatural claims DESPERATELY need some sort of organization, and while I think a positive connontation like "rationalist" or "reason-based-thinker" might sound more palatable than "atheism" as a title "atheism" is much more iconic.
I really agree that we need to avoid being overly even-handed (and this is a liberal tendencie as well as an atheist tendency). Islam IS a far greater threat than Chrisitianity, and Mormonism is WAY more ridiculous than Protestantism or Catholocism. It's a liberal and reasonable tendency to want to turn the microscope on one's own culture as well, but I think it serves us poorly in a rhetorical battle.
That said, I'm not about to start attacking Islam left and right. That religion allready gets enough hate (especially here in the western world). Similarly, unless provoked, I'm probably not going to go after Buddhism, Hinduism, or the Amish because they're far less of a threat to the things I like than Chrisitianity, Mormonism, and Scientology.
So yeah, it's all silly stories, but some silly stories are more dangerous than others.
|