Cat wrangling and Atheist bus ads in Iowa

Its often said that organizing atheists is like herding cats. And, while cliche, it’s probably closer to truth than not. Recent polls and surveys in the United States reveal a large and growing segment of the population who consider “none” to be their religious affiliation. Within the “nones” are, of course, atheists. And the “nones” dominate as much as 20% of the populations in some states.

According to the August 2009 Gallup Poll^[1], the none/atheist/agnostic category averages at 13.2% for the United States with at least 7 states exceeding 20% in this category.

"Nones" in the U.S. is a Growing population.

But, despite their large size (larger than Jewish populations and even blacks in many states), atheists aren’t an organized minority. This is because atheism really isn’t a political position or even a worldview. Atheism simply means that the individual stands unconvinced by arguments and claims for gods. Most atheists have no desire to spread “atheism” or convince others of their doubts. However, there are some, like myself, who do want to share their beliefs and who hope to convince others others that reasons for believing in gods are lacking and worth questioning if not outright harmful in some ways. And there are many more who want to let other atheits know that they’re not alone in their lack of belief.

The recent comments of DART officials in Iowa and by the governor of Iowa, Chet Culver, reveal the apprehension -the fear- that the religious have regarding the notion that atheists -nonbelievers- might organize. Should this happen, we would instantly become a minority with a voice -a voting presence that can effect change in policy. The very thing that the religious have been striving for (particularly the fundamentally religious) for decades with mixed success. Anyone who could move a non-religious minority with the potential to be as large as the numbers above, could feasibly eliminate religious goals and efforts from public policy. Issues like abortion, gay rights, women’s rights, public education standards, stem cell research, and others would be all but won since the mode of oppression within these issues is religious superstition. Without the weight of religious opinion and the so-called “religious right,” opponents of these issues would be forced to resort to reason and logic to argue their points and convince the middle.

In such a light, an ad on a public bus that reads, “Don’t believe in god? Your not alone” becomes a serious threat. The last thing the religious want, particularly those religious figures who hold positions of power and influence, is for the irreligious to realize just how large a group they are; or just how influential they can really be.

Which is why its important for atheists to not be uncomfortable or afraid to voice their atheism in their day to day lives. When asked about my religious affiliation at work or in social gatherings, I don’t hesitate to point out that I’m an atheist. The nature of the conversation dictates the delivery (sometimes its humorous, sometimes its pointed or blunt). I don’t wear my atheism on my sleave (though I did have the little “A” on my tie once), but if the subject is brought up, I’m there to meet it head on.

Part of the reason is that I know that there are other atheists out there and who are afraid to acknowledge it publicly or, perhaps, even privately. Another reason is that there are many religious people who just cannot fathom that they know anyone who doesn’t believe in a god. For them, if I believed in a god who looked like a blue elephant, this would be easier to understand than not believing in a god at all (that “belief in belief” that Dennett discusses in Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon).

I like injustices like the DART response to the “offense” of the ad that “never should have been allowed on the bus” to begin with. Injustices like these serve to bring atheists together and to organize us faster and more efficiently than trying to reach out in normal grass-roots methods. The atheosphere, that space on the internet where atheist bloggers converge, is alive and active. But the atheist brand needs more exposure. We need to be seen as a force to be acknowledged; as a force that won’t go away; and as one that is to be respected. When that happens, we’ll have initiates that want to join our club.

This analogy might be wrong, but I think that’s one of the things that happened with the advent of the so-called “new atheists” -vocal authors and media personalities who spoke out, primarily in the wake of 9/11, of the negative nature of religion. This “new atheist” movement (if I can give in to the label for a moment) served as a rally point for like-minded and non-religious people the world over, but primarily in the United States. I know personally of several people who previously did not identify as atheist or agnostic (one even considered himself Christian) but do now after having read Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett and/or Harris as well as other “new atheist” authors.

If the post-9/11 “new atheist” awakening was the first step, then its time for step 2: Atheists must converge beyond the atheosphere and find a voice that resonates throughout society.

It is then that we’ll start effecting real change. The proof of this is in Iowa, where DART has agreed to put the bus ads back up. Evidently they received more calls and emails complaining that they were removed than they did complaining that they were up.

Bravo atheists.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The folly of pretence (guardian.co.uk)
• Atheism is not a belief system, ok? Got that? Why must we repeat ourselves? (endhereditaryreligion.com)
• The Striking Correlation Between a State’s Religion and Its Politics (usnews.com)

1. http://www.gallup.com/poll/122075/Religious-Identity-States-Differ-Widely.aspx#2 [↩]