A short street in southwest Brooklyn has given some militant atheists the opportunity to prove once again that being angry against God turns one against man, as well.
Richards Street has been renamed “Seven in Heaven Way” in honor of the seven local firefighters killed on 9/11. Colloquially, the group has been known as the “Seven in Heaven” for years, so the moniker struck the right tone, memorializing the sacrifice of these men in the very words of their friends, neighbors, and families. The name is a little campy, perhaps, not very highbrow, but it’s a charming example of the fierce and well-deserved pride in one’s neighbors and neighborhood that Chesterton lionized in The Napoleon of Notting Hill – an increasingly rare commodity.
Cue the protests of the wailing-and-gnashing-of-teeth crowd. The word “heaven,” in case you didn’t know, is offensively religious, and thus cannot be emblazoned on a publicly funded noun. (I wish I could say the protesters were biblically literate enough to protest that “seven” is an offensively perfect number and should be similarly verboten.) Dave Silverman of American Atheists implores the city to respect the constitution by avoiding the H-word: “Call it ‘Seven Heroes Way’. Call it ‘Remember Seven Way’. But leave Christianity out of it – it wasn’t involved.”
Such a delirious allergy to all things vaguely associated with Christianity deserves little comment, as the phenomenon is both widespread and frequently addressed in these pages. What’s particularly outrageous about this event is the protesters’ casual willingness to brush aside a real, colloquial name with flesh-and-blood ties of love behind it in favor of a bland, neutered, ideologically sanitized version of the same.
Apparently the humanists don’t have much of an ear for what humans really love. People in mourning and people remembering loved ones don’t want generalized statements of universal applicability – that’s why renaming Richards St. Freedom Way or Sacrifice Way or Prosocial Genetic Behavior Way or even Seven Heroes Way wouldn’t appeal. They want the specific character of their loved ones to be forever remembered in the way their friends and families knew them – in this case, as the “Seven in Heaven.”
No one can really get upset at the evangelical atheists for railing against religion – after all, they can’t help it. What’s really strange about them is how easily they rail again natural, human goods as well. It’s almost as if there were a connection between religion and being human.
July 6th, 2011 | 11:58 am
[...] “Evangelical Atheists vs. Humanity”: Such a delirious allergy to all things vaguely associated with Christianity deserves little comment, as the phenomenon is both widespread and frequently addressed in these pages. What’s particularly outrageous about this event is the protesters’ casual willingness to brush aside a real, colloquial name with flesh-and-blood ties of love behind it in favor of a bland, neutered, ideologically sanitized version of the same. [...]
July 6th, 2011 | 1:56 pm
First off, I have a pet peeve about the double standard attending the phrase “militant atheist”. Do a Google News search on the phrases “militant islamist” or “militant christian”, and you find references to violent insurgents and terrorists. Switch to “militant atheist”, though, and you’ll be searching quite a while before you find anyone advocating (much less carrying out) violence.
To be called a ‘militant’ believer, you have to actually pick up a gun and shoot someone. To be a ‘militant’ atheist, all you have to do is write a book. Or file a lawsuit?
July 6th, 2011 | 2:00 pm
I would imagine that most atheists don’t feel that those described here as “evangelical atheists” speak for them, although I don’t suppose a poll on First Things will be of any help. Since what atheists have in common is what they don’t believe, it is difficult to imagine any particular atheist organization being representative of atheists as a group in the same way that, say, a Jewish organization could speak for Jews or a Baptist organization could speak for Baptists. (And of course neither Jews nor Baptists are monolithic groups themselves.)
Also, the issue here is a First Amendmen one. It’s not wholly improbable that a religious (but perhaps non-Christian) separation-of-church-and-state fanatic could agree with these atheist separation-of-church-and-state fanatics on the street sign. Being an atheist does not automatically make a person feel strongly about a “religious” street sign or even the posting of the Ten Commandments.
Also, in the comments section following the article that was linked to, there is considerable disagreement about whether or not the sign is objectionable at all, and even if it is in theory, whether or not it is wise to make a fuss over it.
July 6th, 2011 | 2:05 pm
I agree that the name isn’t terribly important or worth fighting over. However, I don’t really find the lawsuit ‘outrageous’. At least, not compared to the allergy so many religious have about atheism.
In Iowa, a group took out ads on buses that read, “Don’t Believe In God? You Are Not Alone.” The bus authority temporarily removed the ads due to protests. The governor of Iowa said he was ‘disturbed’ by the ads, and one bus driver refused to drive a bus with the ad on it. A billboard in Cincinnati with the same message had to be moved because of threats to the owner of the building it was on.
In Detroit, ads with the same message were vandalized. Also in British Columbia. In Arkansas, worries about vandalism led to demands that the group posting the ads come up with $36,000 of insurance for a $5,000 ad run.
Think about that. The message was essentially just, “Atheists exist”, and that was considered offensive. What could atheists possibly say that wouldn’t be considered offensive?
If you think atheists are so prickly, try wearing a t-shirt with an atheistic message for a week…
July 6th, 2011 | 2:44 pm
Lenin, Stalin and Mao were certainly “militant atheists” and mass murderers to boot. And to dismiss this by saying that they weren’t mass murderers because of their atheism “per se” is laughable, since that argument can be turned against the atheist to excuse religious violence as well.
July 6th, 2011 | 2:46 pm
Ray, the problem is atheism is adversarial to belief period. Atheists are against believers and there’s no way to soften it. If anything people seem to relish it, openly mocking and deriding them.
For every one of you who is polite and respectful there are ten people who think the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a devastating religious critique, and see believers as subhuman. And they take advantage of Christian passivity to keep doing so. Militant has many synonyms, and atheists earn a lot of them.
It’s not that “Atheists exist” is a problem. It’s that Atheists are constantly saying how annoying it is Belief exists, and how stupid believers are to follow it.
July 6th, 2011 | 3:53 pm
Also, Ray, there’s a big difference between exercising your right to protest a sign on a bus or to refuse to ride in or drive such a bus and having a court coerce behavior in line with atheist demands. Violence or threats of violence in these matters is always inexcusable, but I would guess that was an extreme reaction of a tiny minority.
July 6th, 2011 | 4:25 pm
Heraclitus – If you could point out anywhere I said that Lenin, Stalin and Mao weren’t “militant atheists” then you might actually have had a point.
As it stands, what I’m objecting to is classifying activists who are perhaps a bit lawsuit happy in the same bin with Lenin, Stalin and Mao.
July 6th, 2011 | 4:29 pm
Dblade –
You kinda shifted terms there. What if I were to say, “Christians are adversarial to sin, period. Christians are against sinners…”
Hmm. Is it possible that you’re basing your estimate on the fact that the most obstreperous are also the most visible?
July 6th, 2011 | 4:31 pm
Fred –
Huh. Mr. Torretta doesn’t seem to entertain the idea that, say, this lawsuit is from a ‘tiny minority’. Oh, well.
July 6th, 2011 | 4:51 pm
First off, I have a pet peeve about the double standard attending the phrase “militant atheist”. Do a Google News search on the phrases “militant islamist” or “militant christian”, and you find references to violent insurgents and terrorists.
Yes, when atheists kill, they are usually doing it in the name of the Environment, (Discover bldg, ecoterrorism) or Utopia, not “no god”, eh?
But atheists still get credit for every Utopia, ,as much as they wriggle to make excuses for why this or that violent revolutionary “saving the world” doesn’t really count as an “atheist” (which gets kind of funny when we are told that this or that left wing ideology – communism or whatever – “is its own religion”.)
July 6th, 2011 | 4:59 pm
“Lenin, Stalin and Mao were certainly “militant atheists” and mass murderers to boot.”
Merely citing common factors does not establish the cause of someone’s actions. Perhaps you may be ignoring the fact that they were all men and mass murderers too boot:)
July 6th, 2011 | 7:24 pm
Maybe the lawsuit is from a tiny minority, Ray, but the difference is, it’s easy to guard against a tiny number of loud people 99% of whom are probably all talk anyway. Those few have no real power to coerce. The tiny minority (assuming aruendo that that’s what it is) that are bringing this lawsuit are attempting to use the power of the state (specifically its most unaccountable sector, the judiciary) to impose their will on the majority.
July 6th, 2011 | 10:03 pm
Ray the difference is in the levels of contempt. Christians are supposed to hold sin only as a problem. There are those that don’t, but usually they get shouted down by the rest, or reminded that its not in accordance to the faith. They are not against sinners.
Atheists really don’t have that. It tends to get more personal with them. Just look at most comment threads and the terms they use: god botherers, sky pixie worshipers, etc.
As for a minority being visible, that’s to a point. But when experiences pile up, I think something needs to be said. In my dealings in the net, you’ve probably been one of the few civil atheists I’ve met. The majority haven’t been in a lot of different venues. It’s not one bad apple in a barrel, unfortunately.
July 7th, 2011 | 1:56 am
What’s next? Are they going to sue the town of Valhalla in Westchester County, north of NYC, to force it to change its name?
California will keep them in litigation for years given all of the religious names (in Spanish) the state has for cities….
St. Paul, St. Louis, Corpus Christi, Texas… and so on.
July 7th, 2011 | 8:21 am
Blake –
Ah, yes, the “tu quoque” ploy – “you too, buddy!”
Let’s assume for a moment you’re 100% right that atheists tend to have a double-standard there. How does that disprove anything about my contention about the double-standard regarding ‘militant’?
July 7th, 2011 | 8:32 am
Dblade –
Not that I’ve noticed. See, e.g., any of the threads here about homosexuality. Alessandra and Blake, for example, heap a lot of opprobrium on homosexuals and I don’t recall seeing anyone remind them that they should be more loving and charitable.
Anyway, that’s as may be.
Aww… the atheists here are ‘delirious’, ‘outrageous’, and quite possibly not even human. Just ask Mr. Torretta.
Yeah – the net. Thankfully, it’s only religious discourse that gets uncivil there, and really only the atheists. Politics, for example, is always discussed dispassionately. :)
I still call selective sampling.
July 7th, 2011 | 11:33 am
Fred –
The “heckler’s veto” is very real. I noted above the case in Arkansas – to take out $5,000 worth of ‘atheist’ bus ads, $36,000 worth of insurance was demanded. If it were your message, would you consider that ‘no real power to coerce’?
Well, if they are correct on the law, then that’s their right, no? And if they are incorrect on the law, then they’ll find out when the judgment goes against them.
Fortunately most of the legalized religious restrictions have been been cleared out of the books by now, but there are some. Michigan only got rid of the ‘no liquor sales on Sunday morning’ law this year, for example. I’m perfectly willing to agree that there are atheist busybodies so long as you’re willing to concede that there are religious busybodies…
July 7th, 2011 | 9:56 pm
Blake –
But atheists still get credit for every Utopia, ,as much as they wriggle to make excuses for why this or that violent revolutionary “saving the world” doesn’t really count as an “atheist”…
Ah, yes, the “tu quoque” ploy – “you too, buddy!”
Let’s assume for a moment you’re 100% right that atheists tend to have a double-standard there. How does that disprove anything about my contention about the double-standard regarding ‘militant’?
You are the one making the claim that there is something wrong with the use “militant atheist”. Your objection does not stand up to scrutiny.
Tell us again why we can’t use the term atheist? You seem to be saying that it’s because
(a) atheists are never violent, and
(b) apparently one doesn’t qualify as militant until after one has killed something.
But (a) is not true atheists do kill people (are in fact more prone to killing as a way of achieving their means than any other faith-based belief group around).
And, of course, (b) was always silly – the term “militant” is not reserved only for those who have actually killed – that would be “murderous”.
July 8th, 2011 | 8:07 am
Blake – At no point have I ever claimed “atheists are never violent”. Seriously, feel free to produce a cite where I did.
What I said was, (a) when it comes to religion, ‘militant’ is only used for people who carry out, or at least advocate, violence; and yet (b) when it comes to atheists, ‘militant’ just means something like ‘politically active’ or even just ‘outspoken’.
Feel free to call violent atheists ‘militant’, just like violent Christians or violent Muslims or violent Hindus. But not all atheists are violent (indeed, I think your proportions are quite off) – certainly nobody’s put up any evidence whatever that NYC Atheists or American Atheists advocate violence or are in any way terrorist organizations. If you’ve got some, lay it on me.
I’m aware that “the term ‘militant’ is not reserved only for those who have actually killed”, but somehow in practice the secondary definition never gets applied to religious believers. In other words… a double standard.
July 8th, 2011 | 7:54 pm
I don’t know, maybe its because they use harsher words? Maybe because Christians who do similar non-violent things atheists do get labeled fundamentalists, flat-earthers, creationists, etc? Militant isn’t always a perjorative term, considering Christians themselves used to refer to themselves as the Church Militant.
As for experiences, sorry. If it’s selective sampling, then I have really bad luck in finding non-harmful atheists. Comparing it to politics discussion isnt helping your cause considering the level of contempt there. Most of my experiences were from listening in various non-religious areas of the net, as well as trying to answer their concerns in religious chat rooms.
The wounded atheist card gets old though. The man in this article is bothered by a street name. You wonder if he gets physical cramps walking past churches. Obviously, freedom means scouring even the smallest trace of religion from public life even when it’s the blandest ceremonial deism ever seen. If people don’t like your billboard and protest it? That’s life when you stand against something someone holds precious, and have nothing for yourself. That’s what is said to christians, and atheists can deal.
July 10th, 2011 | 12:06 am
Dblade –
My smiley was intended to indicate sarcasm. As in, what I was really saying was, “If you’re looking for civil discussion on the internet, you’ll have to search for a long time, whether it’s over politics or religion.”
I said I disagreed with the lawsuit already. Then I went on to point out some examples of religious people breaking out in “protests” (which some malcontents might call ‘vandalism and threats’ but that’s foolishness, of course) over a hint of atheism.
In other, more pithy words – those of Larry Niven – “There is no cause so noble it will not attract some kooks.”
July 10th, 2011 | 7:16 pm
What I said was, (a) when it comes to religion, ‘militant’ is only used for people who carry out, or at least advocate, violence; and yet (b) when it comes to atheists, ‘militant’ just means something like ‘politically active’ or even just ‘outspoken’.
But that is not true.
As I’ve already pointed out, the term “militant” is used for people who are militant, whether they are murderous or not.
There are plenty of atheists who are not actively waging war on Christianity or trying to make their religious-unreligious beliefs into the law of the land.
But the reason they don’t go around putting “atheists exist!” billboards on things is because obviously everyone knows atheists exist. Who spends good money to state the obvious?
Atheists have gotten about as much mileage as they’re going to get out of the faux innocence/pretend cluelessness/fake sincerity. We all know that when you say “I don’t understand how gay marriage will hurt your marriage”, you aren’t really saying that you don’t understand, you’re playing a game. We all know that when you say “We just want to co-exist”, you aren’t really saying you just want to co-exist, you’re just making a move in a game. You aren’t really trying to reach out to those lonely atheists out there who don’t know that they’re not the only one. You know as well as I do that there is no such lonely atheist, let alone enough of them to warrant a bus ad. If I were a bus driver, I wouldn’t want to drive a troll’s bus either, so good on him.
If atheists want respect, I advise them to stop relying on trojan horse or “wedge” strategies, stop relying on fake innocence, stop in fact with all the misrepresentations and dishonesty. You’d have to give up the part about forcing Christianity from the public square – you’d have to actually live with your own “tolerance” and “live & let live” rhetoric, and settle for only making honest arguments and defending them with real logic instead of with dirty tricks, but that’s how real respect is earned – that is where real trust comes from.
Co-evolution is real. People like Thomas Sowell are writing entire books dedicated to analyzing (and providing step-by-step instructions on how to recognize) the tricks and verbal frauds that “progressives” rely on to manipulate debate (as opposed to debating policies on their real merits).
July 11th, 2011 | 8:52 am
Blake –
To theists, the billboards say “atheists exist”. To atheists, the billboards say “other atheists exist, and here’s a place you can find some to hang with”.
Context, baby.
“That is why the motive game is so uninteresting. Each side can go on playing ad nauseam, but when all the mud has been flung every man’s views still remain to be considered on their merits. I decline the motive game and resume the discussion.” – C.S Lewis
Um… no, I don’t know that. You can assert that, I suppose, but that doesn’t make it true.
Governmental endorsements, pronouncements, and policies are not the whole of the ‘public square’.
And would you recognize it if someone did?
July 12th, 2011 | 7:42 am
Um… no, I don’t know that. You can assert that, I suppose, but that doesn’t make it true.
Well, the philosophers have pointed out that we can’t ever really “know” anything. But based on past history, it’s a safe enough bet that when atheist-humanist groups start off with some variant on “all we want is to not be persecuted anymore…”, it’s safe to assume that the motives involve troll tactics, and the list of what will have to be granted in order to make you feel “included” enough will be both outrageous and open-ended.
You “progressives” keep thinking you can cherry-pick the whole civil rights thing. But it doesn’t work that way. Civil rights relies on truth. It relies on that truth The reason white people care about black people being blasted with fire hoses is that white people know something is dreadfully wrong, and that both makes them feel dirty and makes them feel something needs to be done. British people care about their soldiers shooting unarmed Indian protestors, because they know they’re wrong and it makes them feel dirty, and they don’t want to “own” India anymore.
But the fire hoses have to be real, and you can’t misrepresent the context. You can’t use dishonesty in representing yourself as persecuted, or try to trick people into giving you more than you’re actually entitled to, and still retain your legitimacy.
The “truth” and “legitimacy” part are what makes the whole civil rights thing work. Having truth on your side is different from daring someone to prove you’re lying. Real truth neither requires nor benefits from troll tactics. Until you “progressives” get that part, all your attempts at manipulation the dialog are going to experience diminishing returns – the exact opposite of how real civil rights movements work.
July 12th, 2011 | 11:49 am
Blake –
Cite some. Explain how it supports your case. Shouldn’t be hard, right?
Oh, I get it! If the billboards and bus ads had been squirted at with fire hoses, it would have counted. Simple vandalism and threats don’t qualify, though. I understand now, sorry to have wasted your time.
July 13th, 2011 | 10:38 am
The last time I checked, secular humanists are humanists, meaning that they genuinely believe that their position is good for humanity.
July 13th, 2011 | 12:46 pm
One can only pity the so called duh, “intellectual” atheist… however, history teaches that atheists are dangerous and that during the 20th century their high priests murdered more humans in their pogroms than all previous recorded centuries of history… Hitler, Lennin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot… since the atheist Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 there have been approximately 1 BILLION state sponsored abortions executed throughout the world… abortion is a fruit of nihilistic atheism.
July 13th, 2011 | 5:26 pm
Seriously, I am an atheist and even I don’t care about this. It is a street sign not the end of the world. move on and realize it is insignificant.
July 14th, 2011 | 10:31 am
azhermit – Hitler wasn’t an atheist. He sure wasn’t a traditional Christian, of course, but he was sort of a neo-Pagan quasi-Christian who explicitly rejected evolution and based his racism on the idea that the ‘races’ had been created separately. The Holocaust owed far more to the virulent strain of anti-Semitism that Martin Luther embraced and fostered. That was certainly the motivation for the majority who actually carried out the crimes in person.
As to the Communist states under Stalin and Mao – they also explicitly rejected neo-Darwinian evolution and embraced (and enforced) Lysenkoism instead. The resulting crop failures when reality failed to match up to “worker’s science” killed a huge fraction – possibly the majority – of the millions who died under those regimes.
Ironically, the people under Hitler, Stalin, and Mao would have been better off if their leaders had accepted neo-Darwinian evolution.
What numbers are you working from?
July 19th, 2011 | 1:03 am
[...] Evangelical Atheists vs. Humanity – Gabriel Torretta, First Things/First Thoughts [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact