I'll start off with a quick housekeeping note:
I had originally planed to end this series for the year with this diary. After some uncareful consideration I have decided to keep the window open for a bit longer. "A bit" could be as much as a month, if I think it is necessary, but it should be a minimum of two weeks. In keeping with the relaxed nature of this year's publications I will just wing it. Keep your eyes out for more diaries and the eventual conclusion diary, which will contain a brief wrap-up and a quite possibly contentious topic in itself: "An open letter to moderate theists."
All plans subject to change by me, so don't get your knickers in a twist if it doesn't go exactly as I have just stated.
All that said, lets get into the substance of this diary. It's possible that a future diary or two will overlap this topic, and I'm sure they'll do a much better job than little ol' me, but I have to put in my two cents on the label "Militant Atheist" that is used somewhat frequently both in this forum and in broader society. Without further preamble, let's dive right in shall we?
Have you ever uttered something similar to the phrase "I think the Red Sox are going to win that game"? Congratulations, you are a ‘militant’ Red Sox fan. You see, if I predict, based on whatever experience I have in my life, a particular major league baseball team will prevail in the next game, by the very nature of my prediction I’m calling anyone who thinks the Yankees will win an idiot. It’s perfectly acceptable for Yankee fans to shout "Yankees rule!" at the top of their lungs, and for them to tell me I’m less of a person for thinking the Red Sox could ever possibly beat Derek Jeter and his Yankee teammates. Being an atheist in America is somewhat like being a Red Sox fan in New York City.
My baseball analogy is flawed, perhaps fatally, for many reasons, but I use it in an attempt to open up the debate to an outside perspective. As a Rockies fan I couldn’t care less who wins the Red Sox vs. Yankees game that is perpetually getting national television coverage, but I can say that I understand what it’s like to be a fan. You have your biases. You get a little twinge of frustration or even anger when a fan of the opponent celebrates something that is, from your perspective, negative. No group is immune to this type of thinking, so it is fundamentally hypocritical for one to assert an exclusive right to "fanaticism." Atheists are often labeled as "jerks" or "militant," simply for having the temerity to make that fact known and defend the position. Theists profess their beliefs constantly, often so easily that no one in our society takes notice. Atheists are used to it, and for the most part don’t let it bother them. We’re not bothered by religious sentiment in and of itself. The reverse is not the case. For an admitted atheist to even get mention, or some modest platform to express their perspective is seen as a direct threat to religious establishment. Don’t believe me? Try wearing a shirt that says "I’m an Atheist" out in public for a day, then a shirt that says: "I’m a Christian" for a day and see which day lands you more negative attention.
Analogies and hypotheticals aside, there are certainly people that identify as atheists that warrant a label of "militant," just as any group large enough will be populated with a handful of them. The behavior that qualifies them, though, must go far beyond telling someone their beliefs are silly (perhaps something like vandalizing a church or religious symbol). There is not, nor should there be any "belief" that is sacrosanct or immune to scrutiny. The main problem between atheists and theists comes when theists take personal offense when their beliefs are ridiculed or scrutinized. I know, I know, people’s beliefs are personal to them, but if someone is incapable of defending their beliefs without being offended by the conversation itself, then they are going to be a perpetual victim of even the most average of discourse. Here’s the major difference between an atheist and a theist: an atheist is not fazed by a theist calling them stupid. We are constantly bombarded with implications that we are wrong. It comes with the territory as an Atheist. Christians in The U.S. are not accustomed to everyday challenges to their belief structure. It’s reinforced on a daily basis. This norm makes any statement affirming atheism seem foreign and malicious, even when relatively more benign than being told "you’re going to hell."
There are probably some who would now label me a "militant" after reading this. I challenge them to write a similar diary from a Christian perspective and read it through while asking themselves: "would this sentiment make me a militant theist in America?"
Double standards are hard to spot when applied to two groups with vastly different size and influence on culture. Does wearing a Red Sox hat on a New York Subway make you a militant?
I have deliberately focused on the sociological aspect of this debate, and avoided the discussion of the actual beliefs in question. I did this because, in this case, I think the polemics of this subject obscure the real problem of the "militant atheist" canard. I want to concentrate on what I see as a double standard in a Christian dominated society, and save the arguments about religion for other diaries. I’m sure I’ll have more to say on this topic but I’ll turn it over to comments and take up the torch there.
Previous Atheist Digest Diaries:
Intro and How I became an Atheist By Xneeohcon
Glossary By Rieux
On Christian Claims to Moral Superiority By Xneeohcon
Debunking Dogmas, Part I: Creationism By wilderness voice
The believers' path to Atheism By Brahman Colorado
Atheist Digest ’10: Ben Stein is a Moran: The Retrospective Improbability Fallacy By XNeeOhCon
Atheist Digest '10: A Theist's View By commonmass
Dubunking Dogmas, Part II By wilderness voice
Stay tuned for diaries from other users including Rieux, Rfall, Something the Dog Said, and Warren S (Look for "Atheist Digest '10" in the Tags and Diary Title)