“Brave Sir Robin” doesn’t describe half of it

Accommodationists and self-professed ‘agnostics’ are cowards; it’s not really hard to tell that, since the entire argument is a tone argument against atheism. They attack the messengers, not the message; they claim that atheism is too ‘strident’ or ‘extremist’ and harp on about the invisible fundamentalist atheists who berate all the religious people they know every day — or the invisible fundamentalist arguments of every prominent atheist from the “Four Horsemen” to us gnu atheists who include a social justice worldview based on making society better for all of its members while retaining individuality — which is a hard balance, but it’s not like we’re going to get there if we’re ideologically shackled.

There’s another half to it: atheists are marginalized. If you’re an atheist, it becomes acceptable for your opponent to start launching tone arguments or declare that they won’t answer your question because they don’t want to and by the way you’re trying to rob me of my faith how dare you ask that question of me. It becomes acceptable to insinuate that atheists do not have a system of morals or ethics, and it becomes acceptable to look down on them as lesser, as “limited”, “closed-minded”, “mundane”, “hopeless” know-nothings who would be so much better if they just believed some form of claptrap. It also becomes acceptable to simply project logical faults onto them and dismiss their arguments with only a superficial address that claims fault with little, if any, description of how this fault actually occurred, or that appeals to “obvious” common knowledge (with, of course, no regard being paid to how obvious it actually is if someone is asking them about it).

Worse yet, it becomes acceptable to not vote for one for President of the United States. In some areas of the United States (most notably Utah) it is possible to be denied a livelihood and run the risk of being beaten or murdered if one is openly atheist (the mere fact that I must refer to it as “openly atheist” in the same way one would refer to “openly gay” or “openly transgendered” is itself problematic). It is acceptable in certain areas to enforce sectarian prayer at public school graduation and ostracize an atheist for supporting freedom of religion.

So for the accommodationists, it’s not just about having to admit wrong and that religion isn’t this special, mystical thing. It’s not just intellectual cowardice.

It’s about not wanting to take up a new fight, a harder fight than an intellectual battle for science and skepticism. It’s about fighting back at the single largest establishment that perpetuates and has spent almost all of its existence ingraining the anti-science, anti-critical thought measures meant for its preservation into society. It’s about admitting that the roots of all quackery are intertwined with religion, and that quackery feeds off of religious privilege, and that they and their fellow wishy-washy ‘moderates’ do so as well.

And if you’re admitting it — actually admitting it, not just paying lip-service — you have to fight back against it. That fight is very hard — ask GBLT activists (heavy emphasis on the T here), feminists, people against the health-industrial complex…or atheists, especially gnu atheists.

Surplus accommodationist weaponry for sale — never used, dropped once.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s