"Antagonistic Atheism" controversy.

I write this letter to praise both Jeff Nall for writing his wonderful article, "Overcoming Antagonistic Atheism to Recast the Image of Humanism" (July/August 2006), and the Humanist for publishing it. Too often, the trend of movements is to creep toward self-righteousness and intolerance. Most recently, a local freethought group in my area did a screening of Richard Dawkins' new film, "The Root of All Evil?" Early on Dawkins criticizes benign forms of religious belief as a "slippery slope" that "can lead to far more dangerous ideas." I was shocked and dismayed to hear a skeptic use a logically fallacious argument such as slippery slope. In the second episode he suggests that sectarian schooling is a form of child abuse. Dawkins may not be outright calling for legal discrimination against religious believers, but such implications are present in this kind of strong language, similar to that used by Sam Harris. Writings such as Jeff Nall's are what keep people like me involved in the Humanist movement. Keep up the good work of promoting neighborly love as well as science.

Martha Knox

Philadelphia, PA

I have mixed reactions to "Overcoming Antagonistic Atheism" by Jeff Nall. I agree that atheists often get a bit rambunctious in denouncing theism. It was a temptation for me after I did the research that enabled me to publicly acknowledge, some sixteen years ago, that I am an atheist. When I learned how much harm the superstition known as religion has done, I became sort of an "evangelical" atheist, trying to do my part to "save" humanity from its "scourge."

But I now see this as naive idealism. I have learned where religious belief came from, why it persists, and why it will not go away. Now that I understand why people need religious belief, I have no reason to be antagonistic. So long, that is, as they respect my lack of need for such belief. We have to coexist, and confrontational, superior attitudes will only hinder us.

What is missing from the article are reasons for the antagonism. These are many and valid. While antagonism, especially toward individuals, is usually unjustified, active opposition to the institution of religion when it encroaches on the rights of the nonreligious is essential.

Jerry Brown 

Culver City, CA

Nall is an atheist with a good and meek heart. He represents the go-along-to-get-along approach to dealing with the forces of irrationality that are the Abrahamic religions. While he can cite successes with the soft, nonconfrontational approach, it is fundamentally wrong headed. Of course there are good and well-intended religious people, but this doesn't alter the fact that faith and belief in myths, miracles, revealed truth, and supernatural beings is anti-intellectual, antidemocratic, antiprogressive, and ultimately antihuman. Antihuman, because no trait characterizes our species more than our deep need to continually explore, invent, innovate, and redefine ourselves as individuals and as a society.

The clergy recognize that secular humanism is the enemy and are in constant war to demonize it. Those like Null seem to devalue secular humanism and deny that religion is, likewise, our enemy. Liberal religion is an oxymoron but many embrace that label and are a large part of the atheist and humanist community but all their successes undermine it. They make us impotent and are the reason secular humanism languishes in the United States while religion flourishes.

Timothy F. Travis

King George, VA

Congratulations to Jeff Nail for identifying a reason why some people aren't joining Humanist organizations.

It's a difficult task for freethinkers to refrain from ridiculing religions, but it's necessary that we do so. Nail's article points out in a very rational way how many of us need to change our opinions and be inclusive.

It's time we Humanists build coalitions and outreach to other groups, yes even the religious ones. We need to educate them by example, that we really aren't the devil and that we practice the humanitarian humanism we preach.

This isn't to say that I don't have a problem with some believers who will vote their religion, thereby thwarting church-state separation and force me to live by their dogma. Because of this, many religious people put democracy in danger. People who oppose stem cell research, LGBT rights, abortion rights or contraception--purely on religious grounds--or who want to put the Ten Commandments in every classroom, may appear to be nice and sweet and have other good qualities, but I'm very afraid of their voice in government. We've seen what religious fanaticism has done to the world and wonder why these people don't see their role in perpetuating it. Often it's difficult to be diplomatic when discussing these issues with "believers" but Null correctly suggests that it's imperative.

Steve Schwartz

Orlando, FL

Jeff Null argues against atheist and secular fundamentalism when it acts to ridicule those of faith through extreme hostility and belittlement. A number of encouraging examples are given to show how tolerant secular individuals have achieved a middle ground with religious believers on social issues, stressing the moral agreements they share rather than the division between belief and reason.

However, I doubt such common-ground events could have taken place were it not for the boisterous among us who vociferously condemn those who base their view on belief. When one looks at the history of change, in many instances the voices of the center were amplified by the rants of the fringe. Malcolm X did a great service to make palatable the centrist teachings of Martin Luther King, much as Leibniz's fanatical support of the status quo led to the credibility of the consternations of Spinoza.

Many wish we could claim the "high road" in presenting divergent views through tolerant consideration. Yet, when those tolerant voices are not strong, they are sometimes only heard when offered as an alternative to the attacking shrill coming from the self-righteous on either side. Maybe someday we will mature beyond that point, but for now, harsh criticism by some may be the only reason those less fanatical find a way to join together for the greater good.

Peter deKramer

Petaluma, CA