– April 27, 2006

Newsweek and Rabbi Marc Gellman Need to Hear from Us About “Angry Atheists”

He tries, he generalizes, but Rabbi Marc Gellman just doesn’t get it.

In the latest web edition of NEWSWEEK, Gellman says that he needs to “understand atheists better,” bears us no ill will, admits we disagree over the issue of “God,” but finds no reason for why we are, well, angry.

Read his column at msnbc.msn.com

We suggest that you then respond. Be brief, polite and concise. Share talking points on the NoGodBlog, or here on this web site.

Letters

April 28, 2006

Newsweek

To the Editor:

This letter is in response to Marc Gellman's commentary of April 26, “Trying to Understand Angry Atheists. Why do nonbelievers seem to be threatened by the idea of God?”

Gellman’s question is clergy-speak for “Why do we have to keep dealing with the real issues that Atheists raise?” And this is what makes the theists so “angry.” Theists like Gellman don’t like it when Atheists come out of the closet and stand up for their rights, speak out against the special rights given to the religious by our government and challenge the idea that theology is sacrosanct and beyond examination.

If he thinks that theists don't spend their time trying to “aggravate atheists” he should read my mail. He should read the letters to the editors across this nation concerned with prayers, Atheists and state-church separation. The hatred and threats pour out against us on a daily basis. His handbook, the Bible, refers to us as fools. But hey, they are just called to that “level of goodness and sacrifice so constantly and so patiently by a loving but demanding God.” Did I mention the murder of Atheist Larry Hooper in Michigan by Arthur Shelton.? He was murdered because he didn’t believe in a god. Unfortunately, religion didn’t help Shelton’s “desires to do what we want when we want to do it.”

Gellman reverts to the classic theistic slur that we Atheists reject theology because we must have suffered some tragedy or that want to get away with criminal activity. He forgot the one that says that we had overbearing fathers.

He would not be able to find any evidence to suggest that Atheists are less ethical than theists. But he fails to explain why theists aren't more ethical than Atheists. Everyday the news covers more crimes committed by the religious, often in the name of their religion.

Atheists simply examine the claims of theology and reject them as totally irrelevant to modern life. But we are pleased when theists employ Atheism in what they do. Feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, and giving medicine to the sick is Atheism. We do these things or our problems don’t get solved.

The “existential despair” he refers to is creating a fantasy world to handle the realities of life. I wonder if he bothered to tell the eminent scientist Dr. James Watson that his life was just “existential despair?”

I am profoundly disappointed when a member of a religion that has suffered horrendously from discrimination, lies and stereotypes thinks nothing of doing the same to another group of human beings. It’s 2006 and we still don’t get it.

But yes, I have to admit I do get angry. I get angry when, in the name of religion, Christian Scientists allow their children to suffer and die while Medicare and Medicaid pays for it. I get angry when theists are allowed to discriminate against Atheist and gay youth in the Boy Scouts, in the hiring of teachers in their schools, in renting apartments to non married couples. I get angry at polygamists who marry off girls to adult family members and throw boys out of their homes because they are competition for men.

I get angry when theists try to dumb down education with the theology of creationism and make children pray in school and yes that still goes on. I get angry when women in some Muslim societies, are beaten and kept as slaves by their god-loving men. I get angry because Islamic terrorists threaten to establish a global faith-based caliphate. I get angry when the religious right wing tries to dismantle our First Amendment separation of state and church. I get angry when Christian associations like the Interfaith Council for Environmental Stewardship tries to gut environmental protections because the Bible says multiply and subdue the earth. I get angry when medical progress like stem cell research is hindered because some theists would rather please their god than cure illnesses. Yes, I’m and angry and my question to Gellman is, “Why aren’t you?”

Ellen Johnson, president
American Atheists, Inc.

908-276-7300
www.atheists.org

Rabbi Gellman,

My name is Michael Doss, and I'm a lifelong atheist and president of Orange County Atheists, a social and political action group in Southern California. I read your column for the first time last week ("The Case for Vegetarianism"), and very much enjoyed your perspective and prose. Because you honestly seem to want to understand atheist anger, I decided to write to you.

The first thing you should understand is that not all atheists are angry. Some are, certainly (and I believe atheists have a lot to be angry about), but most simply want to live their lives. Some are concerned with other people's religion intruding into their lives, while many others simply want to be left alone. Due to the nature of atheism, there is no "central group" telling atheists how to believe, or how to act. There are vast differences between those without a belief in God or gods.

The loudest atheists, the ones you might be reading online or seeing on talk shows, are often those with something to say, and that comes off as anger. This tends to be true of most groups - those willing to speak up, make themselves heard, and stand out in the crowd are those with a reason for doing this. But every atheist's reason for this is different.

I meet a lot of atheists as president of my local group - some are angry because of personal histories. They have a hatred of God (and occasionally religious peoples) due to a perception that He is the cause of their problems. This subgroup, however, is by no means the majority of the people I meet, and it's not true for me. I'm an atheist for the same reason you don't believe in 200-foot tall purple gorillas or that the moon is made of green cheese - I don't see the evidence for such things as being convincing, or there's evidence to the contrary.

Another point I wanted to make was that not all atheists are nihilists - in fact, very few in my experience seem to be. For me, the purpose of life is to live. Because life is short, and because any life after death is unknowable, I must do my best to live the best I can every day. Personally, that means treating others with respect. It means being a vegetarian and working to end animal suffering. It means enjoying life's pleasures. And it means working to end negative religious intrusion into my life and my government.

Do I have anger? Absolutely. I'm angry that non-Christians seem to get deferential treatment, both directly and non-directly. I'm angry that religious belief is so much assumed to be the moral standard that non-theists are automatically seen as amoral. I'm angry that Christians praise God for the most minor things while seemingly ignoring the millions of people suffering in the world. To me, worship of a being that can help, but doesn't (or helps those who aren't suffering while ignoring those who are) is somewhat disturbing. That said, I don't hate God any more than you hate Zeus or unicorns. There's nothing there to hate.

I hope this letter finds you well, and provides some insight into the beliefs of some atheists. I hope I've conveyed that we're a diverse, non-organized group, and our beliefs cannot easily be compartmentalized. But the anger that exists does exist for a reason. I'm glad you took the time to write this column, and thank you for your kind treatment of atheists. I hope to hear back from you, and would love to hear any feedback you have, and begin a dialogue on this topic.

Michael Doss
Orange County Atheists
http://www.ocatheists.com

Dear Rabbi Gellman,

I read your opinion article with much interest. Perhaps you are right, some atheists are angry. I cannot speak on their behalf; however, because I do not understand why it is exactly they are angry. Maybe they spilt coffee on themselves that day, I'll never know. Instead I will offer my opinion and explain why sometimes I am angry as well. My history with atheism began when I started regularly attending church and studying the Bible. It was there I also discovered an intolerance and underlying distrust of those who didn't know their true path. It didn't seem very Christian and when I began studying human behavior and the science of the natural world around me, I realized I no longer needed a crutch of religion. Now flash forward to the anger bit. I try to live a good life. My morals come from studying the world around me, society and I generally try to treat people as I would like in return. I am angry when that respect is not paid to me, instead of respect I get appeasement. The anger I feel is that of not being treated as a "real American," and an anger over increasing opponents of science and reason that are hoping to exchange science for faith. The saying, "It takes one to know one" may hold true for many religious people, Rabbi. You will probably never be able to understand my disdain of religion and my anger over it because you are not non-religious yourself. You agree that "It is hell to live without hope, and religion saves people from hell." I say it is hell to live with a false hope and that is all religions provide. That is why I am angry. I don't drink coffee, luckily.

Shaye S.

Angry Atheist? That's quite the broad brush.

I get angry because of other's behaviors. Not because of who they are.

Fundamentally, pretty much all people are "good." However, from time to time some people exhibit inappropriate behavior.

An example of inappropriate behavior are those behaviors that jeopardize others. Blowing ones self up in order to kill non-believers is inappropriate behavior. Do what you want to yourself provided it does not hurt others (go out to the desert and blow yourself up, don't do it in a crowded market). Suicide is fine provided you don't leave a wife and/or kids...

I digress.

I'm not angry because you are a theist, I get angry because of the behaviors that your theism drives you to do that affect me.

A Rational Being (http://nonsequitur2.blogspot.com)

Hi Marc,

I read your 4/28/06 column, "Trying to Understand 'Angry Atheists,'" and I'd like to respond.

The subtitle of your article reads, "why do nonbelievers seemed to be threatened by the idea of god?" The short answer to your question is, "we're not." We are threatened by PEOPLE who believe in the idea of a "god." Centuries of inquisitions, crusades, witch-hunts, 9/11, and the current George Bush--initiated bloodbath in the Middle East---all these killings, maimings, and destruction have been perpetrated by PEOPLE who believe in a "god."

Personally, my being an atheist is NOT "the result of a tragic death of a loved one...."etc. as you state. My wife and I were both raised Catholic, and we became atheists (together!) in our early 30's, as a result of years of listening, learning, and study. We have two children we love very much, and we raised both of them as freethinkers. We, and they, are happy!

Thanks for listening.

John Kiel
Indianapolis, IN
Center for Inquiry Community of Indiana (CFICI)
American Atheists

Mr. Gellman,

In your article, "Trying to Understand Angry Atheists" you imply that the Atheist is angry. This is not so. We may be oppressed by the religious right, and we may speak out against Government involvement in religion, but we are generally not angry. This common misconception is because our view does not necessarily mix well with that of the Theist, so the Theist says we are angry or we are searching to make themselves comfortable with the idea that not everyone has an imaginary friend.

I believe that your problem begins with pseudospeciation. You apparently look on fellow humans as being their thoughts or beliefs. It strikes me as quite odd that a seemingly educated man can fall headlong into Cartesian or substance dualism. The idiom "we are what we eat" is more accurate than "we are what we think." The people who do not share your views are not a subspecies in need of a classification. You, and your religious brethren, will do good to ponder this.

Allow me to elaborate on what Atheism is and what it is not. Atheism adopts reasonable and rational perspectives on life; it does not believe in gods or the hereafter. Atheism is not a cult or religious sect to be dehumanized by those given to fancy and superstition. Atheists are not angry, rather, they are concerned, as the rational person should be, by world theocratization and mans inhumanity to man "in gods name."

A cursory review of history proves that it is not the Atheist who has perpetrated hideous crimes on humanity, it is the religious minded thug, those with the irrational belief that ones imaginary friend is better and more powerful than another's and the "other" should be converted or killed for their own good, that has caused calamities of the past.

Those given to fancy and superstition refuse to look, with a critical eye, at what they are being asked to believe. They overlook those "divine" edicts that do not suit their purpose, and they breed contempt, hatred, bigotry and discrimination. Religious eschatology offers an excuse to be inhumane and disimpassioned toward others, animals, and the earth; their animas will be "forgiven" simply for the asking.

Although I can only speak for myself, I believe that the average Atheist is perplexed at the seeming inability of their fellow sapiens to think with clarity or act with understanding and intelligence.

Kevin Frad
Compos Mentis,
Tucson, Arizona

Dear Marc,

It is my view that your recent Newsweek column expressing your misunderstanding of "atheists" paints with too large a brush and promotes the well-worn and false perception that atheists are "angry at the idea of God" and that "religion" is solely required to prevent humanity from declining into some sort of selfish, hedonistic degradation.

I am a happy and proactive atheist who often seeks out such public misperceptions in an attempt to bring clarity and a broader understanding of what it means (personally and publicly) to be an identified "non-believer" in immaterial supernatural beings and common religious assertions.

Your column of April 26, 2006, is (in my view) a prime example of incorrect broad generalizations creating a straw man argument which the article then seeks to deconstruct. It was, even with your disclaimer to the contrary, still condescending in that it falsely excuses the bad behavior of religious leaders as those who may betray their "moral teaching" (by default) while implying that those without belief in God(s)ess(es) are failures or insufficient no matter how good they behave in this one life.

In short, the message you send is that religion is always "good" while people may fail it, however, atheists can never reach that level of "goodness" without a belief in some deity. This, in my view, is incorrect to assert and demeaning.

Worse, your words assail my personal human value and those like me (even though you do seem to want to wash your hands of doing so by offering your laudable closing sentence).

Atheism is merely a non-belief in God(s)ess(es), nothing more.

It certainly says nothing else regarding one's moral/ethical system or life stance or even their demeanor. For instance, I am also a police officer, loving father of three wonderful children and husband (married to the same beautiful woman for 16 years).

If you are interested, you may read a little bit more about my own recent personal experiences, behavior and values as a non-believer in God(s)ess(es) here:

http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/Schlicht.Hurricane.pdf

To be sure, I can (admittedly) become rather lively in political expression when encountering any encroachment on personal liberty by those who would seek to impose religious indoctrination via legal statute upon me through control of government or those who seem to purposely mischaracterize atheism in order to promote their own religion.

This should not be misconstrued as "anger at the idea of God" (whichever one of the thousands are particularly purported to exist during any given conversation with a respective adherent), rather, it is a proactive attempt to maintain freedom within secular guidelines and to promote an honest examination of concepts and claims.

This may be more of what you are experiencing when you perceive some atheist's angst/anger at those who believe in the absolutism of their particular denomination or religious text and assert it as superior or as unquestionable "truth".

In any event, it is truly my hope that some common ground can be attained through this sort of dialogue and that peace can prevail in a secular society comprised of those with different worldviews.

Sincerely,

Det. Sgt. Steve Schlicht

[text only]