I had kind of an interesting conversation with my mom after I posted a link to the clip of Richard Dawkins & Douglas Adams. My mom said, “Who was that other guy in the clip? Dworkins?” I said, “Dawkins. He’s the world’s most famous atheist.” My mom said, “Wait, who’s the one who’s the really aggressive, wild-eyed, extremist atheist?” I said, “Um, yeah, that’s him.” My mom said, “That’s him? Really? He seems pretty mild-mannered in that clip.” I said, “Yeah, actually he is pretty mild-mannered.” My mom said, “So why does he have such a reputation for being so extreme?” I said, “I don’t know. That’s the American media, I guess.” So I was thinking about that, and seriously, in order for a religious figure to get labeled “extremist” or “militant” by the American media, that person has to blow up a lot of people, or at least threaten to do so with some credibility. But apparently all it takes for an atheist public figure to get labeled “extremist” or “militant” is for that person to robustly defend his beliefs and maybe occasionally employ a sarcastic or condescending tone of voice.
It was the same thing with Michael Newdow, the guy who went to the Supreme Court over the words “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. I thought he had a pretty decent case, since Supreme Court precedent stated that Congress could not pass laws for the express purpose of “promoting religion,” and when Congress passed that law they stated in the record that “We’re passing this law in order to promote religion.” But whatever. What really struck me was that within minutes of the story breaking in the media, Michael Newdow’s phone was ringing off the hook with death threats, and yet all the media coverage was about what a fanatical wacko he was.
EDIT: It just occurred to me that Phillip Pullman always gets described as a “militant” atheist too. You’d think he was muling suitcase bombs on behalf of AUSCS. Seriously, he’s just a professor who writes books, and they’re fiction books for children. Get a grip, people.
Leave a Reply