Words You Don’t See in the Media: ‘A Self-Proclaimed Christian’

I honestly hadn’t noticed this before, but it makes a lot of sense.

For one, it’s suggesting that atheism is a phase, a sort of teen-age rebellion.  “Oh yeah, Timmy keeps saying he’s an ‘atheist’ now.  Last week he said he was a Buddhist!”  

It also denigrates atheism by suggesting that without some sort of signature authority it’s just an amateur, also-ran concept.  Religions are assumed to be membership organizations that have some form of authority to vet applicants whereas anyone can go out and just proclaim themselves an atheist.  Without any authority figure to grant approval, being an “atheist” can be seen as someone claiming to be an “artist,” and dismissed just as readily.

Mr. Ratzinger, an avowed and militant Catholic, said…

I just read a 2007 article on the Nightline debate between The Way of the Master and the Rational Response Squad.

You see this in the very first sentence: “Why are Kirk Cameron, a preacher, and two self-proclaimed atheists coming together in a church this weekend?” Imagine “a self-proclaimed preacher and two atheists.”

I’d start with “In an article by _____, a self-proclaimed reporter, …”

Interesting take on this. I’ve never interpreted this sort of thing as implying any doubt about a person’s atheism, anarchism etc, but rather as implying that to say one is an atheist is to confess to a failing. As in a self-confessed drug runner, self-proclaimed con artist and so on. Either way, it’s pretty insulting.

I think it is partly due to the general public thinking “atheist” is a terrible thing to be. To them, to say someone is an atheist is an insult, and only by adding a qualifier that it is a self-given title can you avoid being accused of being slanderous.

The same sorts of things go on with “homosexual” – although this phenomenon does thankfully seem to be losing its grip as that particular paradigm shift gains momentum.

You read “an avowed homosexual” or – my favorite- “an admitted homosexual” (i.e., a criminal who’s confessed).

A dominant paradigm always denigrates/cast suspicion on/devalues/invalidates anything or anyone outside it.

For the most part that’s a thing of the past. At least in mainstream media. It used to be extremely common in the 60s to the 80s though

Calling
somebody a “self-proclaimed” atheist insinuates that the person
is not honest. This has nothing to do privilege. It is called framing
and reporters do it either carelessly or on purpose.

404 error broskie.

I think the self-proclaimed author of this self-proclaimed comment makes a minor self-proclaimed point, but may be neglecting the self-proclaimed impact of the self-proclaimed social implications.

Actually you will see the term ‘self-describe christian, when the subject has done something horrific  the name of  his “Christian” beliefs, so they can’t just ignore it. Example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8656515/Norway-attacks-profile-of-suspect-Anders-Behring-Breivik.html

“On the Facebook page attributed to him, Mr Breivik describes himself as a
Christian and a conservative”

I agree that they are useless, but I’m not sure what we can really do about it.  You can’t sue a reporter for libel, because if you described yourself as an atheist, then technically, you are a self-proclaimed atheist.  Personally, I think we will slowly see these adjectives disappear from such reports.  I don’t know how to speed up the process… maybe just bringing the issue up for discussion (as this article did) is the only thing that can be done.

I’m too lazy to look it up again, but anyone with the time, try looking up recent articles about Jessica Ahlquist and see how many times she was referred to as a ‘self-professed’ or ‘self-described’ atheist. I commented about it somewhere,

To quote a very wise man who was making an observation much along these lines (only he was referring to UFO sighting reports versus Christianity):

—

[T]he marginal people in these two groups don’t matter in thisargument.
What matters is the prejudice and superstition built intothe media coverage
of the two sets of beliefs. One is treatedreverently and accepted as
received truth, the other is treatedlaughingly and dismissed out of
hand.
As evidence of the above premise, I offer one version of a
typicaltelevision news story heard each year on the final Friday of
Lent:
“Today is Good Friday, observed by Christians worldwide as a
daythat commemorates the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the Son of
God,whose death redeemed the sins of mankind.”
Here is the way it
should be written:
“Today is Good Friday, observed worldwide by Jesus
buffs as the dayon which the popular, bearded cultural figure, sometimes
referred toas The Messiah, was allegedly crucified and according to legend
diedfor mankind’s so-called sins. Today kicks off a `holy’ weekend
thatculminates on Easter Sunday, when, it is widely believed, thisdead
‘savior’ who also, by the way, claimed to be the son of a sky-dwelling,
invisible being known as God mysteriously `rose from
thedead.’
“According to the legend, by volunteering to be killed and
actuallygoing through with it, Jesus saved every person who has ever
livedand every person who ever will live from an eternity of suffering
ina fiery region popularly known as hell, providing so the story
goesthat the person to be ‘saved’ firmly believes this rather
fancifultale.”
—

Thank self-professed God for allegedly providing us with that self-confessed comedian George Carlin.

I wonder if this is for historical reasons. Historically, accusations of atheism against historical groups who weren’t atheists per se were not uncommon. This is discussed in detail in this Wikipedia article- 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_the_Age_of_the_Enlightenment . So in that context it might make sense to be clear when someone has used the term themselves. It is possible that I’m giving too much credit to the media here… 

Thanks for the shout-out VJack. 

 Can’t you just show ’em your Anarchy License?

George Carlin did a great bit about just this thing. He wrote a newspaper article that is done the way they do it with atheists, only with xians. It is in his “When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops”.

I imagine the press would or could use the term ‘self proclaimed christian’ when they refer to a christian committing a horrible act. Or maybe use ‘former christian turned atheist’.

Isn’t that just a bootleg Black Flag cassette?

I think it’s very difficult to deny that the Christian majority is priviledged. They’re the ones whose beliefs are considered legitimate, honest, and a sign of great moral integrity. It’s the fact that everything else is considered illegitimate, dishonest and morally suspect which makes everyone else the victims.

lots of crap in those five sentences…

For what it’s worth, a while back I googled a bunch of phrases of the form “avowed X”. Turns out that, just as you might expect, it mostly applies to X=atheist, with “humanist”, “deist”, and “Scientologist” distant runners-up:  http://www.ooblick.com/weblog/2011/08/19/avowed/

I’m a self-identified atheist, and this doesn’t bother me.

I think this way of writing about atheists stems from knowing that the term, “atheist,” has negative connotations among the general public. Using a qualifier helps to clarify that the subject uses the label for himself, and thus isn’t being insulted or misrepresented by the writer.

Imagine someone who refers to himself as an asshole. To write about such a person, simply referring to him as an asshole, might lead to confusion for the reader. Clarifying that he’s a self-identified asshole helps the reader know that it wasn’t the result the author’s judgment.

 Yeah, see, that– that’s exactly why we scorn and mock them.

It was, yes.

 That’s because it’s kinda, erm… hammered in to you when you’re young. Even in cartoons, you’ll have shit like a miniature Angel and Devil perched on a character’s shoulders, arguing back and forth about what to do. Christian symbolism just… it’s everywhere, man!

I can imagine the conversation about being an “admitted” atheist going something like if you were asked “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

Reporter:  So John here, who is an admitted atheist…

Interviewee:  Wait a minute, why did you say “admitted?”

Reporter:  So you don’t admit to being an atheist?

Interviewee:  No, I didn’t say that…

Reporter:  So you do admit to being one?

Interviewee:  Yes, but…

Anyone viewing a reporter’s work could be suspicious that the reporter
is being slanderous. In North American society atheist is seen more as
an insult than a proudly worn label. I don’t think this is necessarily reporters casting atheists as illegitimate or dishonest. Almost all news reports or articles involving atheists will describe us as “self-identified” or “self-described”, including unbiased reports and ones in favor of our view. To paint them with a large brush stroke of Christian privilege isn’t fair. Some of them just want the viewer to know that atheist is how the subject chooses to be identified.

Interestingly, someone at Atheist Revolution expressed nearly the same idea I offered above, including using an asshole for example.

You are correct. Technically speaking, what I described would perpetuate negative connotation. I think it’s worth noting that it’s passive perpetuation—not active. The writer should mindfully write to the likely audience, including phrasing to avoid potential confusions. Whether the writer should make attempts to quell misconceptions about a particular subject is, I think, dependent upon circumstance, but certainly not obligatory.

I disagree that such passive treatment necessarily reinforces false preconceptions, though it might. The mere mention of a subject could remind the reader of his thoughts about it. Does this reminder constitute reinforcement? Whatever the case, any inaccuracies the reader associates with a subject are imbued by the reader, unless otherwise provided by the writer. Any resulting reinforcement is therefore derived from the reader himself.

Christianity is the GOOD one. People have no reason to be ashamed about it. Right?

Those angels and devils in Disney cartoons were my first exposure to Christian symbolism. It doesn’t have to be a bad thing, though. If a child is growing up in a secular home, he or she simply places angels and devils in the same magical category as fairies, ghosts, monsters, etc. I had no idea that people thought they were real!

 Thank you. I’m sure we’ve all been refreshed and enlightened by your unique point of view.

My vote is for carelessness. Most people don’t realize the many things they say that reveals their privilege. Also this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

“AMEN!”