I'M AN ANIMAL (AND A HUMAN BEING)

Following making the previous post, on both the forum and here, a few comments were made regarding the fact that I mentioned people were hiding, or not more publicly displaying, their atheism. These comments basically highlighted how difficult it is to make the decision to come out, and what kind of thought processes come to bear. The following quote summarises one of those thought processes:

“Am I ‘hiding’ who I am, or simply making decisions that will protect people I love from needless worry?”

And the following is my response to the above quotation and other similar comments about this issue of coming out…

The fact that most if not all of us question our reasons for remaining in the closet or whatever really illustrates, for me, the reason why we should, when we feel ready, come out. Unless we are biting tongues for ourselves to avoid being ostracised, we often keep our views to ourselves in order, exactly as you say, to ‘protect the people you love from needless worry’. If you genuinely fear reprisals that they may suffer as a consequence if you went public, then you need only come out to those that are close to you and enlighten their perspective. As I said in my previous post, if the majority of us remain invisible, it leaves the theists to define ‘us’. Many many people fear what they don’t know, they may even hate this unknown if what they do know is based on definitions created through their own ignorance and terms of reference. The words – theist, atheist – themselves are only separated by a negative prefix, already creating in the mind a sense of ‘us’ and ‘them’. Other words had to be loaded with ideological significance first, but, generally speaking, when white defined black, straight defined gay, man defined woman, the definitions were not favourable to the defined. These people took control of defining themselves, and their status is infinitely preferable to how it was before that time. This did not and does not mean that they pigeon-holed themselves into little boxes that could only perpetuate racist, homophobic or sexist attitudes. Consciousness raising served to boost awareness of how and when this tiny aspect of their character was/is being repressed or oppressed. It gave/gives people pride in this tiny aspect of their character, taught them not to feel ashamed and allowed them to speak out when myths surrounding this tiny aspect were being perpetuated and used to repress or oppress. As these numbers speaking out increased, the heterogeneity of these voices became apparent and their meaningless category became just that, meaningless. People are people: we cannot be placed into little categories. Consciousness raising brings more out to discuss and disagree about who and what we are. These discussions inevitably highlight how different, and therefore how similar in our humanity, we all are. ‘We’ already know this, many others do not. By continuing to debate, in discussions and forums such as these, hopefully our voices will spread to the wider arena, others will see that we are as varied and as human as they are, and that our voices are as valid as any others in society.

Maybe wearing symbols of atheism declares us as people wishing to be defined as such, I don’t know, and it is something that has prayed on my mind since making my previous posting – as I’ve said, I don’t want this to be how others define me – but how are we to highlight that we are out there and that we are normal otherwise? Without these symbols we are invisible. If you want to make a difference, possibly you have to risk pigeon-holing yourself until such a time that this category, as many others, has become meaningless. The fact that you are displaying such a symbol may cause others to question you or to label you, this gives you the opportunity to demonstrate that they are wrong in their perception, and that you are just you. Maybe this is just me: I am not a confrontational person, but I try and defend my point of view when confronted. If I am invisible, there is no need for me to be confronted and my voice – another voice – will not be heard. Maybe the symbols will cause no reaction, but just being seen to be a normal, reasonable human-being will do no harm to the causes of atheists everywhere.

A symbol of atheism shouldn’t be seen as confrontational, just as theist symbols shouldn’t. If they are taken to be so and this is acted upon, whoever they are – theist or atheist, this action deserves to be denounced. This denunciation does not harm the cause: such condemnation actually strengthens it and serves to unite the moderate majority. The Muslim peers who lobbied for the early release of the teacher in The Sudan is a case in point. This type of action serves to highlight their humanity in the eyes of other religions and people, and their commonality with them. It also serves to give moderate Muslims a safe home for their belief. We all know that this action was taken on behalf of Islam. If atheists were to take similar actions in the name of humanity, while not denying our atheism if challenged, it would just illustrate how open our ‘church’ is and, again, would hopefully serve to highlight what we all have in common with each other. It would also give an example to other stigmatised atheists that it is only their humanity that defines them, that atheism means nothing except non-belief in superstitious dogma, and that there is nothing to be ashamed of, or for others to be scared of.

Symbols such as t-shirts or badges shouldn’t – I’m not saying they don’t or won’t in many cases – create or reinforce an us-and-them mentality, but, in many respects, from an atheist’s perspective, there is already a them-and-who-is-us? mentality, so maybe it would be nice to know who ‘us’ is. Discussions such as these are a start, but we are only talking to ourselves: we need to engage others and demonstrate our humanity to highlight that our voices are equal to anyone else’s, but that’s what all this is about at the end of the day, isn’t it?