Why Atheists Stay in the Closet
Andrew Rosenthal, the editorial page editor of the New York Times, has just started a new blog called “The Loyal Opposition.” He explains:
What’s with the title? Although I often find myself in opposition with what is going on in Washington, I’m not out to destroy government or to drag down individuals. My intention is to engage in and encourage debate and dissent, which are vital to democracy. So, please, no name-calling. As Woody Allen put it in “Stardust Memories” (not on my Netflix queue): “To you I’m an atheist. To God, I’m the loyal opposition.” By the way, before the Twitter attacks start, I’m not an atheist “” I just like the joke.
It’s interesting that Rosenthal 1) felt compelled to announce he wasn’t an atheist and 2) assumed that the presumption he was an atheist would trigger attacks on him.
KK: Everyone is embattled these days.
Rest assured that there are bigots on every side of every issue prepared to attack.
What would be a real turn is for some editor at the NYT or any other mainstream newspaper to start a new blog, “some old fashioned truth”, or some such title, as way of poking gentle and maybe not so gentle fun at the now fashionable faux atheism of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, et al.
I don’t see how the post title matches up with content. Who is in the closet? Not Woody Allen and not Andrew Rosenthal.
What I gather is Andrew has very little confidence in what he says. He qualified the movie lest people think he might actually be interested in it. Then he qualified the Allen quote lest people think he might be an atheist. I guess he thinks being an atheist is a bad thing.
I happen to be an atheist, but I’m not interested in converting others to my way of thinking. Usually the only time I might mention it is if someone else brings the subject up. I find arguments about religiosity to be a waste of time. People aren’t one dimensional. Why treat them as such?
@2
“now fashionable faux atheism of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, et al.”
Please, I’d love to know what you mean by faux atheism, and how Dawkins et al. practice it.
Yes, the poor atheists in America are regularly atacked and worse by the KKKristians.
And of course no atheist actively seeks to disparage people of Christian faith, because they are so busy attacking Islam and those who interpret it so violently.
This is not one of your best posts.
What I gather is Andrew has very little confidence in what he says. He qualified the movie lest people think he might actually be interested in it. Then he qualified the Allen quote lest people think he might be an atheist.
Bob K @3: Well spotted! It is an oddly diffident passage.
I also have to ask where was “The Loyal Opposition” at the NYT and the MSM in general while the least experienced and least accomplished presidential candidate in modern times was being praised to the skies in the media and hardly vetted at all, nor for the first 2 1/2 years of that administration.
Back in 2009 Rosenthal called Obama “the most extraordinary president of my lifetime,” based apparently on nothing more than the president’s “incredible sense of calm.”
But somehow things are different now. Even liberals are turning on the current administration while Republicans are likely to take back the White House and Senate next year.
Yes, Rosenthal’s timing is good, if not his principles. It’s time to wheel out some opposition to the government.
What gives here.
My posts have disappeared into oblivion today.
Hunter @ 5,
It is clear why Rosenthal would assure people he is not an atheist. A University of Minnesota poll in 2006 found that Atheists are the least trusted minority in the US, ranking below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians, etc. This prejudice is least in the areas of the US that are the best educated. They are considered immoral and criminal by many.
Atheists are more common in Europe, representing 20-30% of the population in France, Germany, UK and the Netherlands.
Eric,
Email offline if any of your posts don’t appear. They could be in the spam folder.
Huxley, @6
I am a loyal reader of the NYTimes. My experience tells me your interpretation of Rosenthal’s initial blog post as opposition to Obama is wrong.
The branch of government that NY Times editorials inveigh against most is the Congress and the Supreme Court, which are controlled by Republicans.,
Since Rosenthal is the chief of the editorial board, I would bet that this is what he is going to continue to do.
Eric @8,
As a theist, some of the most trustowrthy people I know are atheists.
I am not certain of the source of the stats you claim, but I am dubious of them.
My impression is that people are much more sophisticated in how they deal with individuals than the poll suggests.
I do wait with anticipation for the Dawkins take down on Islam, and I missed it somehow, would love to know what title it is under.
This is a good example of being separated by a common language. With some posts I forget that the majority of the commenters here are American. I forget, and think we are all just English-speakers of the world.
Then I come across a post like this and, with a shock, I realise most of you live in a different universe (to me). Seriously, the majority of Brits (and Europeans) care as much about your religion as they do which side of the street you live on.
For what it’s worth, there is something similar with climate change. There are some political correlations concerning beliefs re AGW but absolutely nothing like you have with your stuff about coffee partiers etc.
I know this sounds as if I speak for the ‘rest of the world’ but nobody does parochialism quite like you guys.
Perhaps you should redefine your debate and call it American warming 🙂
“I do wait with anticipation for the Dawkins take down on Islam, and I missed it somehow, would love to know what title it is under.”
Do a search for “Dawkins Islam”.
OT.
I see the comment section no longer displays the comment time in the date/time link. Could this be an indication of an impending website related apocalypse?
Hunter,
Your lack of prejudice is not a surprise. Since only about 1/2 of Americans admit prejudice against atheists you are not a statistical rarity. According to the poll, 48% would disapprove of their child marrying an atheist, and 39% agreed that “Atheists don’t agree with my vision of American society”. Muslims, gays, blacks and conservative christians got lower percentages of disapproval.
I tried twice to post a link. , but the posts disappeared, so I finally omitted the link. Google “american sociological review atheists” and you will find the paper.
This is not a new phenomenon. A Gallop poll in 1999 found that 48% of people thought that atheists are unqualified to be president of the US. In this respect they outranked Gays and Mormons who polled at 37% and 38% respectively.
Eric Adler, I would actually think that the numbers of atheists are more than 20-30 % in most European countries. In theory most Danes (like me) belong to the national, protestant, church but in reality most of us tend mostly or indeed exclusively to pray to Anteros :o)
Anteros, I have only got Danish and UK experience to rely on here but I don’t think that you are quite right in saying that people in UK and Europe do not care about other people’s religion. I think for instance that a Mormon or Muslim would have a problem getting elected in Denmark and probably also in UK but yes, there is a huge difference in how religion is viewed. In fact almost the opposite of how it is viewed in the US. The perfect example is probably that you pretty much have to “do” religion as President of the US as per the Gallop referred to by Eric, while Alistair Campbell memorably told Tony Blair “Sorry, but we don’t do God” :o)
Hannah,
You’re right – a Muslim Prime Minister in the UK is pretty hard to imagine – although less hard than in the States!
And yes to the Alistair Campbell idea – best to just keep schtum..
Anteros, you can “get away” with religion in the UK but only if you have a sense of humour about it. A friend of mine belongs to an evangelist church and she routinely refers to herself as “a happy clapper” in order to put people at ease :o) Purely out of curiosity, any particular reason for the name “Anteros”?
Hannah, I admire your directness!
The name Anteros? a longish story – a relationship with an old flame, ideas of requited love…….and then I was doing some research on the history of Aluminium and came across the fact that the first aluminium statue in the world was Anteros (commonly known as Eros) in Piccadilly Circus. A bit more research about the philanthopist who the statue was dedicated to and it seemed perfect. It was just at the time I started writing on blogs, and the relationship was ending in exactly the same way it did first time round!
So, a mixture of the sentimental, the fortuitous, and the appropriate..
Apologies all round for the OT 🙂
Anteros, I have a fondness for the “old Greeks” hence the question :o) Yes, I am terribly “Danish & Direct” I am afraid…..sorry ….it absolutely horrifies most of my English friends who are much more polite than I am… Sorry to hear about the old flame btw but going back seldom works. The memory is almost always better than the reality but nothing worse for a potential new flame than an idolised old one. Look up the John Donne poem “The broken heart” and you will see what I mean…so “onwards and upwards” ……if you can say that about love?! :o) Yes, totally OT (sorry) and now the comments on the witness statements that I have been waiting for has arrived so better get back to work …….
I am a loyal reader of the NYTimes. My experience tells me your interpretation of Rosenthal’s initial blog post as opposition to Obama is wrong.
Eric Adler @10: Ah, you get the point!
No, of course, Rosenthal will not oppose Obama now any more than he opposed him in the past, though he might make a token gesture or two on his blog to shore up a semblance of balance. But that’s OK because liberals are disenchanted with Obama.
This is all about opposing Republicans now that Republicans control more of the government and are likely to control even more after the 2012 elections.
Rosenthal is not the Loyal Opposition to the government. He is the not-so-loyal opposition to Republicans. I am saying he is a partisan opportunist posing as something grander.
Anteros, I have just realised what you wrote about the Anteros statue. Now why I am not surprised that the English (and indeed most people) get Anteros and Eros mixed up??? :o)
I’m afraid it is true – the English generally don’t know one end of the pantheon from the other. But as far as mix-ups go Anteros and Eros isn’t bad – at least they are both Greek 🙂
Huxley, @22
You call Andrew Rosenthal a “political opportunist”. What is the basis for this label?
Rosenthal has been a journalist since he graduated from the University of Denver in 1978. He has worked his way up to being editorial page editor of the NY Times after 33 years.
If you look at his job description, he doesn’t actually write the editorial opinions. That is the job of the editorial board. He edits what they write.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/opinion/editorialboard.html
Ha! Reminds me of when I, somewhat in despair (long story), told a guy that he frankly made me feel like Pyrrho and he replied in bafflement: “Why in Heavens name do I make you feel like Poirot?”, in all fairness I really like Agatha Christie so it could have been both, but the memory of that (and him) still makes me smile :o)