W. Kamau Bell and "so-called" atheist oppression

The part I'm talking about starts at about 6:04. I don't know how to link that. I mean obviously he's just a comedian and I'm not equating atheist oppression to that of black people but for him to say that we are on the list somewhere between people with peanut allergies and rich white people who are too tall and good looking seems patently absurd. He also claims that "atheism is for some white people like having a black belt in white privilege". It remains a fact that in the state constitutions of at least 7 states in the U.S. atheists are not even allowed to hold public office (and surprisingly enough they aren't all in the south). Also he makes the allusion that Islam is just fine and we should all be tolerant even though atheists are imprisoned in Islamic countries and await execution as I write this but that atheists (who don't threaten violence against anyone) need to shut the fuck up. What pisses me off more than anything is that this video was posted on the Crommunist Report and the guy didn't even bother disagreeing with him on this point. Am I just completely wrong-headed for expecting people who claim to be rational to actually behave that way?

Hey Captain -

I'm with Kamau on this one for the most part anyway. If somebody were to say "as an atheist I'm also part of an oppressed minority", they would indeed be deserving of riducule.

The problem of religious privilege is not that it oppresses a minority (self-declared atheists), but that it impoverishes society at everyone's expense. To make it a minority-oppressing issue is to miss the point entirely. The discrimination you mention in the 7 states is an offence against freedom of expression, and it should be opposed as such (even though it does happen to be aimed at atheists in particular).

The problem of religiously inspired legislation is that it goes against the interests of the section of society targetted by that particular law (which may be gays, women who need abortions etc), not that it goes against the interests of atheists.

Also, tactically, we're not going to win the 'oppression olympics' and anyway, the prizes there are not worth having.

The bit of WKB's act I don't necessarily buy is that an atheist really did say the stated quote. It sounds made up for comedic purposes, and probably as a weak-sauce attempt to ingratiate himself with religious people in the audience by seeming to be even handed. But, hey, he's a comedian so I cut him some slack.

The idea that self-reliance is somehow "white" in the context of skin colour is one I haven't heard before. Would be a bit depressing if this idea were to gain traction !

piginthecity wrote:I'm with Kamau on this one for the most part anyway. If somebody were to say "as an atheist I'm also part of an oppressed minority", they would indeed be deserving of riducule.

I agree with you on that point. I don't necessarily consider atheists an oppressed minority because that would imply that they were a group that had no choice in the matter about whether or not they were an atheist. So if you are putting lack of oppression in those terms then yeah I don't think atheists are an "oppressed minority".

The problem of religious privilege is not that it oppresses a minority (self-declared atheists), but that it impoverishes society at everyone's expense. To make it a minority-oppressing issue is to miss the point entirely. The discrimination you mention in the 7 states is an offence against freedom of expression, and it should be opposed as such (even though it does happen to be aimed at atheists in particular).

True it is more about expression and atheists don't claim any such group unity as the religious do. If you were to say "anyone in the Freedom From Religion Foundation is not allowed to hold public office" that would be oppression against a group. However it still effects people are atheists and are unwilling to lie about that perspective and it is also unconstitutional and should be struck down on that basis too.

Also, tactically, we're not going to win the 'oppression olympics' and anyway, the prizes there are not worth having.

It's not a matter of points but I wouldn't want to be the one to walk into those Islamic countries and tell those people who are awaiting execution or are imprisoned for life because they are being called an "atheist" and tell them that they are not being oppressed. The dismissive nature that he addresses the issue is a bit outrageous and grossly ignorant of history. But it's not like comedians deal with facts anyway.

OK - on the 'Islamic countries' point, yes, I should have stated that it's a western atheist who can't claim to be oppressed. Fair point.

As far as 'prisoners of conscience' in repressive regimes go, though, I think we shouldn't particularly identify with atheist ones and claim community with them. We should support freedom of expression for all political and religious minorities in these countries whether atheist or not, and join with all other such supporters of freedom of expression whether they are religious or not.