Which Battles Should Atheists Fight?

I actually think it is more helpfulto pursue solid goals. By accomplishing “tiny tangibles,” we can measure our progress, one step at a time.

If we have clear symbols of religious oppression in our society, removing those markers diminishes the power of that oppression.

What is the alternative? Complaining without any tangible solutions? My goal is to make change, not tread water.

I think people are making the mistake of considering all of these things as separate battles — they are all the same battle.

Of Hemant’s list the pledge in school is the most troublesome since it (a) is the state requiring religious expression (admittedly the students can opt out but how many know this) and (b) is often accompanied by religious indoctrination (e.g., how does the lesson on the pledge explain ‘under God’ [some out there skip over explaining them]).

I was thinking something along these same lines the other day when my wife stopped on a program about transgenders the other day. It often seems to be the case that atheists are in the same corner as the LGBT group, I would assume because it is often in opposition to the theist/christian stance, but I got to thinking about transgenders in particular.

Doesn’t having a gender that is in opposition to ones sex necessitate a soul, or some other non material existent me who could be one gender while my material self’s sex is chosen by whichever chromosomes my parents happened to have given me? Doesn’t belief in gender outside of sex breach the realm of supernatural, and if they do, as I’ve come to believe, why is it that the atheist is not so quick to put down these silly superstitions as they are to the changing of a motto, or the pouring of water over a child and the chanting of an incantation?

Just a thought.
Cheers

Due to the “grandfather” clause invented by the Supreme Court used to protect the Texas 10 commandments, basically an argument that since it took so long for someone to point out it was unconstitutional it somehow becomes constitutional, I don’t think we can afford to skip anything.

Doesn’t having a gender that is in opposition to ones sex necessitate a soul, or some other non material existent me who could be one gender while my material self’s sex is chosen by whichever chromosomes my parents happened to have given me?

Sorry, you think gender is about chromosomes? Since when does your DNA do your thinking for you?

Gender is about the human mind and body. DNA is a part of it… but only one part.

We are a combination of genetics, environment, development, growth, experience, psychology and personal direction.

DNA is only genetics.

Doesn’t belief in gender outside of sex breach the realm of supernatural,

No more than belief in math beyond counting fingers breaches that realm.

Nothing magical about it… we are complicated beings with levels of abstraction built upon simpler structures. Our chromosomes are simple structures that only *BEGIN* to express a plan for a person’s physical development.. they DO NOT express an endpoint of that development.

I’ve come to believe, why is it that the atheist is not so quick to put down these silly superstitions

Why do you rush to a supernatural explanation? Are natural causes really insufficient to explain that sexuality is more than just a question of xx or xy?

How about you not decide what all Atheists should do?
I think it’s great that everyone can follow their own heart and if someone wants to pick money? Let them. Better yet, it’d be great if a bunches of Atheists picked one of everything. The money, the pledge, all of it gets derided and spoken against until it’s changed. That’d be great and it would sure get the message out that we’re not complacent, voiceless, weak, nor helpless anymore.

The NRA sets its misguided, murderous focus on the second amendment. Similarly, the thought leaders of atheist groups can put the most weight of their efforts to bolster separation of church and state issues, spotlighting all areas where the opposite is occurring. What about allying with Non-Christian religious groups, at least politically? They are equally shut out faith based programs.

With things like the 10 commandments in TX allowed to stay due to a “grandfather clause” that basically says if no one has complained about something being unconstitutional it eventually becomes constitutional, I don’t think we can afford to not fight every battle. If we don’t make a move on the Policeman’s prayer, then it will get grandfathered into legality.

Fight and lose if we have to, but fight nonetheless.

Euthyphro,

Gender is socially constructed, it may be related to sex, but it’s not entirely derived from sex. Gender concepts often include ideas on appearance and behaviour. As with all of identity politics, it’s ignorant and petty, with a bunch of crazy thrown in, and that includes the supernatural. Although to answer your question: no, there does not need to be a soul or anything supernatural for someone to be of one sex, and of the the opposite associated gender. For one, gender concepts might not even be accurate to their associated sex, and secondly it’s the naturalistic fallacy to suggest one should follow the other anyway.

Sex is determined by biological characteristics. The XY/XX distinction is a sex determinant for humans. There are some exceptions, some people can be identical with opposite sex chromosomes. Sex is about sex, sexual reproduction, involving two specializations male and female, sperm and eggs. There is plenty of variance with characteristics associated with the two specializations, many are simplifications or averages. These simplifications and averages tend to be applied in gender concepts.

we should delegate!

Those who know me realize that I consider “under God” and “In God We Trust” to be the two most important battles.

They teach bigotry to young children where it is learned at an emotional level by linking it to acceptance and approval of authority figures.

Bigotry, learned as a child and anchored to emotion, will make most children an obstacle to the equal rights and respect of atheists in all other areas throughout his adult life in most cases, declare atheists to be inherently immoral and un-American, and reject the idea of their child marrying an atheist. And he, in turn, will pass his learned prejudices onto his own children.

A reasonable objective would be to fight discrimination at its source, and this source is a pledge that equates atheism with rebellion, tyranny, and injustice. This source is a slogan on the money and increasingly posted in public schools and government buildings that say, “He who does not trust in God is not one of us.”

I disapprove of the tactic of fighting these in the courts. This only teaches people to hate the courts and the laws that the courts decided the case on and to demand their replacement.

Instead, the proper tactic is to take the case to the people themselves. This way, if and when the courts render the right decision, the people support that decision rather than demand the replacement of the judges.

Revyloution: What an insightful answer! But what church-state issues meet those criteria?

Many battles have been tried and failed. What have the successful atheist battles been over? Bible reading in the classroom? Are there any issues today anything like the few that have been won in the past?

And can atheists win church-state battles that Jews or Buddhists could, realistically? If not, would it be better to leave some issues up to Jews or Buddhists?

I’m considering joining the military, and I noticed, while I was at one of my local military offices, that the enlistment oath and officer’s oath both end with “so help me God.”

Please don’t. In today’s military, a woman can be harassed, raped, inpregnated, and finally murdered by her superior officer before the military will do anything about it. To their credit, at least the Army finally did do something about it after she was murdered, you know, when it would help her the most. You know the case I’m talking about, the guy fled to Mexico after burning her body and was caught.

I agree with what Kimbo Jones said above. It’s not different battles but the same battle. If you give the fundies an inch of rope, they’ll surely hang you by it. Every time a new church/state related case comes up, they build a case by using all those past cases to cite precedent. How many times have you heard, “This is a Christian nation,” and then when challenged, the response is that our mational motto is “In God We Trust”, that it says “under God” in the pledge, etc, etc? Any victory they have can and most definitely will be used against us later.

Euthyphro,
This isn’t one of the battles I was planning to fight when I popped onto this site a few minutes ago, but in this case I’ll make an exception. 🙂 Everyone: sorry this is so long. 🙁

You are assuming there is a clear dichotomy between the sexes. This is not the case. Examples which seem extreme have been helpful in elucidating this. It’s a complex process.

Embryologically, the male & female reproductive systems develop from the same tissues; testes are homologous to ovaries, scrotum to vulva, penis to clitoris, prostate to uterus, etc.

The default is for the fetus to develop as female, regardless of karyotype (chromosomal makeup); the fetus develops into a male if and only if there testosterone is present in adequate levels, and can exert its effect in the nuclei of cells.

One basic, genetic, condition in which sexual development can “go wrong” is androgen insensitivity syndrome, in which a fetus which is 46,XY (chromosomally male) lacks working testosterone receptors; they are phenotypically female (but lack uteri, which isn’t noticed until they fail to begin menstruation in adolescence), and reportedly are as likely to consider themselves female throughout life, and to be attracted sexually to the opposite sex (phenotypic males), at the same rate as 46,XX women. So, to summarize: (1) chromosomally male, (2) elevated serum testosterone levels, (3) phenotypically female, and (4) gender self-identification usually female, at rates similar to women who are chromosomally female. The explanation? Testosterone receptors in the brain have been essentially unaffected by testosterone, throughout fetal and subsequent development.

Congenital adrenal hyperplasia is another interesting example. It’s autosomal, so that 50% of those affected are XY and 50% are XX. Some affected people are born “intersex”; they have historically been assigned to female gender at birth. (Others have a form which doesn’t manifest until later in life.) Secondary sex characteristics don’t develop, or develop incompletely, at puberty. According to an article in the journal Pediatrics, ~90% of those affected from birth self-identify as female.

Then there’s 5-alpha reductase deficiency, which the main character of Eugenides’ book Middlesex has, in which an XY person may be born with female-appearing, or indeterminant/intersex, genitalia, & appear to be female before puberty, but at puberty develops masculine secondary sex characteristics, and often? sometimes? changes self-identification from female to male.

All can be explained on the basis of a genetic abnormality, with first manifestations in fetal development. Fascinating – and no supernatural attribution required.

There should be a scale of battles that are worth fighting:

1. Things that affect people’s lives – faith based initiatives, circumcision etc.

2. Things that indoctrinate people, even subconsciously – pledge of allegiance*, teachers and subjects in school (teach the controversy!)

3. Things that allow religion into the public sphere – Ten Commandments in Texas, IGWT on the currency, national day of prayer, swearing on the Bible in court etc.

4. Tax exempt status for religious groups and other special treatment for religion and the religious.

*Pledging allegiance to a flag is stupid and unthinking. People should pledge allegiance to the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights, ideas are infinitely more important than symbols. Symbols represent everything I hate about religion, they obfuscate ideas and stop people critically reviewing those ideas. The flag also leads to the unthinking support of America and the government (“USA #1” which isn’t true in any non-economic/military measure!)

You cats need to work on your reading comprehension here. I am not arguing that there is something supernatural in sex/gender. My point is the exact opposite.

I have never met a transgender who have said they they had a brian wired differently, or that they were unable to produce testosterone, or any other physical reason for being transgender. What I have heard is that they are actually literally a male “soul, or female “soul” or personality, or anima however else they might phrase it, who is stuck inside the body of the opposite sex. And they literally mean they are trapped. My point being that these explanation that our often given call on something supernatural. I am not claiming that there is anything supernatural at all, only that these claims do, and therefore are as deserving of scorn as religious folk calling on the same.

Cheers

“Doesn’t having a gender that is in opposition to ones sex necessitate a soul, or some other non material existent me who could be one gender while my material self’s sex is chosen by whichever chromosomes my parents happened to have given me? Doesn’t belief in gender outside of sex breach the realm of supernatural…?”

Such phrasing makes it sound as if you’re the one offering up souls as an explanation. Reading comprehension is one thing, mind reading is another.

Anyway, I think I understand your point. You’re saying that it’s equally appropriate to judge people for what gets them off (gender) as for what they believe about the nature of objective reality (theism). Please explain to us how that’s not completely absurd.

Anonymous said
“Many battles have been tried and failed. What have the successful atheist battles been over? Bible reading in the classroom? Are there any issues today anything like the few that have been won in the past?”

Ok, were going to torture the military metaphor to its maximal.

In a war, there are many battles. The generals need to decide when and where to fight. Use the brief outline I provided above for helping to make that decision.

Don’t forget that holding ground is just as important as taking it. Every court case that refers to Supreme Court decisions is another ‘win’ for separation issues. There are separation cases in the courts every year, and we win a large chunk of them.

Then there is the role of the irregulars, the skirmishers, and the special forces. These groups are not supposed to win battles, they are supposed to keep the opposition off balance.

If we think of the Secular Coalition as the army, its leaders as the generals, and us as the foot soldiers, then it becomes very important do decide which battles to fight, and which to leave to the skirmishers.

As an example, I wouldn’t recommend just ignoring the police department prayer issue. But at this time, we might not have the ground, or the time to win this battle. We should never abandon a fight, we should watch carefully to pick a battlefield and time of our choosing.

And cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.

I’m with Eliza here. Sexual development is fascinating.

In addition to 5ARD, 17BHDD syndrome can also cause a “natural sex change” from looking (mostly) female at birth to looking (mostly) male at puberty.

What’s more, the brain is a highly sexually dimorphic organ, far more so than we suspected even 20 years ago. And it sexually differentiates at a time differing from the genitalia.

This means that the brain can be typical of one gender, the genitalia the other. The result is transsexuality. This is an intersex condition, we know that now. Part of the body is typical of one gender, the other parts the other.

As the part that is the mismatch is the central nervous system, this leads to a cross-gendered gender identity. How, we’re not sure, we just know that it does. Apart from that, we have a good theory, but trying to find an experiment to test that is non-trivial.

For details, see Prof Ecker’s and Prof Diamond’s recent presentation on “The Neurobiological Evidence for Transgenderism” given at the recent American Psychiatric Association annual conference (here).

Male to female natural sex changes happen, but are really rare, one in several million as opposed to perhaps 1 in 50,000 for 5ARD and 17BHDD combined. They’re not well understood.

One thing – we’re dealing not just with experimental subjects here, but human beings. People who face enormous legal and social challenges, as well as the mental and medical ones. Been there, done that.

If I’m understanding Euthypro correctly, is he basically saying transsexuality is superstition? Like huh?

And kudos to the awesome scientific explanations on here by the brilliant folks willing and able to educate.

Obviously we need to pick our battles. The frickin Roman Empire had to pick its battles. That doesn’t mean we “let slide” certain inappropriate government displays of religion, it just means we prioritize. How to do that? Start a list of every police prayer and cross on a hill in a public park in the country. Don’t start yet another atheist group; try to get the Secular Coalition to start a task force, or maybe AU (in association with the ACLU?). If you have enough time and money to pursue the one in YOUR town, by all means do. But if you’re like most of us and you don’t, let’s combine resources, prioritize, and wipe out one at a time.

Found this topic rather late. I usually don’t comment but this is an issue I feel strongly about. I am an atheist from a Hindu background and most of my family and friends are religious Hindus. One rule of thumb that I often use in determining which battles atheists should pick is based on feedback that I get from family and friends.

To give you an example, take the “under god” in the pledge of allegiance. Newdow actually tried to argue that the “under god” might be offensive to religious minorities and he specifically cited Hindus. I don’t know which Hindus he’s talked to but among the ones I know, there isn’t a single person who feels upset in any way. However, in contrast, pretty much every Hindu I know was upset about Judge Roy Moore’s attempt to put the ten commandments monument in his courthouse.

Going through the others examples mentioned above, nobody cares about Nativity scenes during Christmas, no one cares about “In God we Trust” on currency but pretty much everyone is upset about the teaching of creationism and also about the less obvious “teach the controversy” strategy that the creationists are trying to adopt.

In the end, IMHO, it boils down to whether or not something is perceived as an imposition of religion. Creationism and ten commandments monuments most definitely are and as to the others, well, the focus of the pledge is not religion but allegiance to the country, Christmas has become more of a cultural celebration than a religious festivals (many Hindus have no issues putting up Christmas lights) and as for money, I am not sure too many people even read what’s on their money (other than one specific number) much less try and determine what religious implications it has.

What I mean to say by all of this is is the general sentiment among religious minorities (not just Hindus) about an issue is a good barometer to determine whether it is worth it for atheists to be picking a fight over it. That way, the religious minorities will be, by and large, on our side as will the majority of liberal Christians.

Raghu

Hope it’s not too late to say something that might be useful…

Seems like there is a great diversity of opinion here about what atheists ought to fight for, with purely idealistic people on one end, and purely pragmatic people on the other, and a few somewhere in between.

Hemant seemed somewhat pragmatist when he said, Going after “In God We Trust” on our money? Not a serious priority for any atheist group in the country.

I didn’t think of this earlier, but atheist groups could use a little help in public relations departmet, both toward other atheists and the general public.

Hemant’s comment made me think “What are the priorities of atheist groups, then?” I have to confess, I have no idea! These groups should say exactly what their priorities are instead of leaving us to look into the tea leaves to find out.

When I think of FFRF, I know that at least at one time they did go after “In God We Trust” on coins; they even have pamphlets about it. When I think about SCA, I think of Bill O’Reilly going after Lori about the bogus “war on Christmas.” So we have a vague idea about what is not an atheist group priority, but no clue about what is a priority. Someone needs to make it clear.

Newdow going after “under God” is a waste of resources. Newdow going after Obama being able to say “So help me God” if he wants to is a waste of resources. I’m pretty sure going after tax-exempt status of religious groups is out of the question; that’s never going to disappear, especially now that it has been expanded to secular groups too. It’ll be too unpopular to make groups that don’t have taxes now pay them.

So how do I sort out who is intelligently picking their battles, and who is just going after every issue that could be raised even when the chance of success is almost nil?