We all have to decide if and/or how to engage with people who level accusations against us, call us names, criticize our choices or intentions, etc., and not just as it relates to atheism. The members of Atheist Republic are no different, and we thought a recent exchange was an example worthy of a discussion. After you read our thoughts, we’d love to hear yours.
Last week, we shared with you an image of a Saudi Arabian girl in Kaaba, holding a piece of paper with "Atheist Republic" written on it. When we re-shared the same image, a Muslim girl shared it on Facebook, along with her thoughts. A Twitter engagement followed, and led to an interesting conversation amongst members of our management team about Atheist Republic, atheism in general, and Muslim engagement with atheists in particular.
Is this actually a thing? "Atheist Republic"? They should call themselves "Anti-Theist Bigots"! pic.twitter.com/I1aIz3oTK5
— kh@rim@ (@Kha_ri_ma) January 22, 2015
The initial comment, “They should call themselves anti-theist bigots,” from a young Muslim woman, although intended to be an attack, was not entirely wrong. Many atheists are “anti-theists” in that they recognize the toxicity of religion and would very much like to see it become obsolete. A good number of atheists would also not reject the title of bigot as a way to describe their opposition to certain viewpoints that are used to justify violence or oppression, the likes of which currently exist in Saudi Arabia.
In choosing whether or not to respond, and if so, how to respond to these kinds of comments, there are a few things to consider. One element to keep in mind is that there is an effective campaign amongst many Islamic leaders to vilify “the West”. Any time opposing voices rises up against posts like this, they are used to fuel that propaganda.
Also at play is the atheist image within the western world. Atheists are generally distrusted in “the West”, largely because of unjustified stereotypes. We are seen as arrogant and angry elitists. Often these stereotypes limit conversational engagement with theists to bandied insults and profanities, especially on a forum like Twitter where conversations are difficult to have. Instead, discussions are often compressed to emotional soundbites, especially when atheists respond in kind.
We asked members of the AR team about the issue of responding to criticism and the recent exchange in particular. Here's what some of them had to say (as you'll see, we don't always agree):
Dan: We had an opportunity to change this young lady's mind about us, but instead elected to solidify and validate her opinion. We will remain a marginalized minority as long as people fear us. I am of the opinion that showing the world we are moral, compassionate people should be among our top priorities.
KimBoo: Context matters. My own reaction would be (and has been) different in each case. Specifically for this example, I would take the high road and walk away – such a person is not going to listen to me, a stranger, about an issue she has already decided for herself. Anger really would serve no purpose here other than make her feel vindicated in her hate, IMHO. There IS value in responding in kind, I think, but it has nothing to do with making them understand our position or change their minds; sometimes it is good to let people know that what they say upsets people...anger does serve the purpose of showing emotional investment. But...it's exhausting. Anger is a warning flag and a great motivator but not a very effective tool.
Lishka: If I bother at all I would ask for specific examples, and if they come up with anything at all, point out that criticism of ideas isn't the same as attacking individuals. Not that I expect them to understand, but I'd try. I wouldn’t respond in kind because I would hate to prove them right – in their minds, anyway.
Jenny, who was involved in the twitter conversation mentioned above: I've never argued with anyone on Twitter before and I will NEVER argue with anyone on Twitter ever again. It was never ending, even after I stopped replying I was being bombarded by people calling me names. I like Twitter for interacting with people and playing hashtag games, not so much for arguing, I now know. As far as the efficacy of arguments of that sort, I gotta say, I think that sometimes they work. I've been on the stupid side of some debates that took place on Facebook, and I did end up (secretly and without admitting it to the person that was arguing with me) changing my position. Doubtful some tweets could ever convince anyone to change their religion, of course, but with other less ingrained stuff I think it is effective. Logic can be beaten into some people...*some* people.
Casper: The internet makes this pretty complex really. You see, in a face to face confrontation I'd likely just shrug it off and ignore it, but with the internet you never know how big of a crowd is watching. In this particular case, this woman went so far as to tag AR into this tweet knowing that doing so would send a notification to the AR Twitter account. So in essence she straight-up called AR out like she wanted a fight. I think it did require some response.
How do you respond to criticism against Atheist Republic or atheism in general? Do you think it’s important to fight the stereotypes by going out of our way to be kind, compassionate and reasonable? Do you personally try to work harder to be a voice of reason, or do you take a different approach?
When are angry responses justified? This is a complex and very personal issue, one we don’t take an authoritative approach on, and we’d love to hear your perspective. Reply to this email and we might share your thoughts and ideas on our website. Let us know if you wish to remain anonymous.
