Accomodationists vs. Confrontationalists

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/16/us/16beliefs.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

The disagreement was not, then, between atheism and humanism. It was about making the atheist/humanist case in America. A central question was, “How publicly scornful of religion should we be?”

Here even the humanists got less humane, as each side stereotyped the other. Those trying to find common ground with religious people were called “accommodationists,” while the more outspoken atheists were called “confrontationalists” and accused of alienating potential allies, like moderate Christians.

***

This rift has been widening a bit amongst the atheist community. My own decision to leave Godless Columbia (now known as Freethought Society of the Midlands) has been my own involvement in this area of controversy. I suppose I am what is called a "confrontationalist."

The New Atheist movement was started by what are called The Four Horsemen--Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens. All four are confrontationalists. Prior to this, atheism and secular humanism was a humble and quiet affair. But 9/11 changed a lot of thinking. The religious inspiration behind the attacks made atheists become more militant. Religion is a destructive force, and the proponents of reason needed to strike back in a non-violent but direct manner.

My atheism is tempered by my libertarianism. This is why I don't go neocon like Harris and Hitchens have. It is also why I'm more tolerant of religious people even though I'm not less critical. But when they start shit with me I throw it right back in their faces.

The one guy that takes it to an extreme is PZ Myers. PZ is a prick. If we have the Four Horsemen, PZ is the shithead tagging along on his jackass. He is the guy who stirs up shit. I'm not overly fond of PZ.

I think I occupy the middle ground on this. The primary reason I decided to get the hell out of the FSM had to do with the fact that certain people didn't want to offend Wiccan attendees. This was more than I could bear. It just makes a mockery of reason.

Accomodationists make the claim that they want to stand for something positive instead of being against something. I can appreciate that viewpoint. Unfortunately, making nice with touchy feely liberal theotards because they also vote for Democrats is nauseating. And that is the bottom line. Secular humanists are prone to collectivism and confrontationalists are too individualistic.

The decisions on this will be individual. There is no atheist pope to dictate what is orthodox and what is not. What I can say is that confrontation has achieved more than accomodation. Being a wishy washy in the closet atheist has helped no one. That is being forgotten.

Posted in: