Questioning atheist org priorities

Lots of queer people, especially the younger generation, criticize the overemphasis on marriage equality in national queer activism.  There are far more important issues like employee discrimination, suicide, and homelessness.  Legalizing same-sex marriage, on the other hand, most benefits wealthy and privileged queers.*  In particular, people love to hate the HRC, the national activist org which seems to symbolize the establishment in queer activism.

*One observes that same-sex marriage also least benefits the younger generation.

I basically agree that same-sex marriage is overemphasized.  And more broadly, I think it's healthy that queer activism has lots of internal criticism over priorities.

Sometimes, I see what national atheist orgs are doing, and I wish atheist activists would be more like queer activists.  Why isn't there more criticism of the priorities of national atheist orgs?

This is inspired by FFRF's recent objection to a proposed Holocaust memorial in Ohio which would be on public land, and prominently features the Star of David.  In the link you can see Dave Silverman defending FFRF's move on Fox News.  Note that Dave Silverman is not the head of FFRF, but the head of American Atheists, meaning that there are two orgs supporting this action.

This isn't just a questionable use of resources and political capital.  Even if the cost was zero, it still doesn't seem right.  Having a Star of David on a Holocaust memorial is appropriate, and is clearly not a government establishment of Judaism.  At most you can argue that it is tacky to sideline the non-Jewish victims of the holocaust, but tackiness is not a church/state-separation issue.  Dave Silverman said that the memorial would look like a temple or synagogue to people driving by; I'm placing an image of the memorial next to a synagogue to highlight the absurdity of this claim.

This is not the first time atheist orgs have done this.  A few years ago, American Atheists filed a lawsuit over the inclusion of the so-called World Trade Center Cross (a cross formed by steel beams among the rubble after 9/11) in the 9/11 memorial.  The local student group discussed this one time, and some guy from American Atheists came to defend the lawsuit.  His main motivation was that they were just so offended by this monument to superstition, when 9/11 itself was caused by superstition.  He also said that they pursued this lawsuit because they were sure that this was the one lawsuit they were most likely to win.  So they need better legal advice too.

And then there are things like lawsuits against "In God we Trust" on our money.  Actually it would be great to get that motto removed, and I would wholeheartedly support it if it cost nothing.  But lawsuits are not free, so it's a question of priorities.  Surely there are non-symbolic issues that are more important to fight?  Non-symbolic issues are not only more worthwhile, but also draw more public support.

Other atheist issues can be found on SCA's key issues page.  Here are just a few:

• Public Funding of Religious Schools
• Schools Discriminate Against Nontheistic Students
• Tax Exemptions for Religious Organizations
• Religiously Motivated Employment Discrimination
• Housing Discrimination by Religious Landlords
• Military Discrimination Against Nontheists 
• Federal Aid to Countries That Limit Religious Freedom
• Religious Employers Denying Healthcare Coverage Based on Personal Beliefs
• Religiously Based Child Abuse and Neglect

Why is atheist activism so different from queer activism?  Where's the popular criticism of atheist org priorities?  Sure, there's criticism, but not on the same scales.  I do not know the reason, but I offer a couple ideas.  First, I believe atheist orgs are working on much smaller budgets than national queer orgs, so the stakes aren't as high.  Second, there's a bit of a taboo against criticizing the tactics of fellow atheists, because everyone seems to have different ideas of how angry or gentle to be.  You are welcome to advance your own explanations.

Reactions to FtBConscience

Last weekend, I attended FtBConscience, a free online conference put on by Freethought Blogs. Here, "attended" means I watched several talks and panels live, lurked in the chat, and watched more videos in the following days. I wouldn't normally watch a bunch of hour-long videos, because the format really doesn't work for me, but the conference felt like more than the sum of its parts. There's something magical about designating it as a conference. I think it's knowing that a lot of other people in the movement who are watching the same videos and discussing them.

I don't know if it's really true that the atheist movement today is divided by Deep Rifts over feminism and social justice, or if this is a narrative exaggerated by reading too many atheist blogs. Whatever the case, the segment of the atheist movement surrounding FtB is partly formed by this narrative, with many people explicitly advocating a more social-justice-conscious movement. FtBCon made me feel pretty good about the resultant community.

In FtBCon, women were more than just a presence, and more than just a significant minority, they were everywhere. There were lots of people of color, and of many colors. There were queers of all sorts, of course there would be. There were trans people who weren't even on the trans panel, talking about completely different things. There were people with mental illnesses, and people with disabilities. A few years ago, atheists could only have dreamed about this degree of diversity.

This kind of diversity doesn't just affect who is in attendance, it positively impacts the topics as well. In particular, I very much enjoyed the panel on religion, pseudoscience, and mental illness, and the panel on the lack of Asian faces.

For those who didn't know, I'm half White, half Chinese, though my mother grew up in the Philippines, not China (thus the Catholicism). I don't think I'm very culturally Chinese or Philippino, based on how little I relate to the associated experiences. But it's pretty hard to miss the lack of Asian people in the skeptical and atheist movements. I don't really have any idea why that is, but the panel was able to provide some insights based on what they knew of several Asian cultures. Also, Yau-Man Chan is awesome.

I don't have any personal experiences with mental illness, but I was still struck by the panel on mental illnesses. Here were people who have been pressured to use alternative medicine, to "think positive", and to consult priests. Because of their personal experiences, they could speak with particular expertise, and also particular compassion, about many skeptical issues. It made me feel like the skeptical movement has been missing these voices all along, and never realized it!

You can still watch FtBCon talks on the website or on YouTube.  The next conference is already being scheduled for January 31 to February 2.