The “regressive left” was originally coined by Maajid Nawaz to describe a certain subset of liberals who, in an effort to appear tolerant and culturally sensitive, try to shut down any criticism of Islam or Islamism by calling it “Islamophobia” or racism. The term has expanded over time to include those who push for trigger warnings, safe spaces, who promote the idea that we are living in some sort of rape culture and who see cultural diversity as a great thing until you shove a California roll in your cake slot, then it’s just cultural appropriation.
Some regressives are atheists as well, however, they appear to be self-loathing atheists who wouldn’t stand up for their own rights if they were tied up and force-fed Jesus wafers by Joel Osteen himself. They seem to think us atheists are a nasty bunch, themselves included, and I think this comes from a good many misconceptions they have about atheists and atheism itself. Here, I would like to address five:
One: They think atheism is a “movement”. It’s about as much of a movement as the moon landing was faked, and if you take off your tinfoil hats I’ll explain it a little better. You see, I was born into an atheist family. I was raised without religion, never believed in God for a day in my life. I was an atheist when I was 2, 4, 9, 11 years old. I was part of a movement? My son is seven and does not believe in God. What role does he play in the movement? What about all the atheists who remain hidden and keep their disbelief a secret? What part do they contribute to the movement? The vast majority of atheists are quiet about it, going about their lives right in front of you without you so much as whiffing a suspicion that they might be godless. How is that a movement? What are the goals of a movement in which the majority of its members are quiet about it?
Two: Atheists do nothing to promote diversity amongst atheists. I was reading a Salon article this morning (yes, I should have known better than to do any such thing) and they asserted that:
The atheist movement’s roots in mostly white, mostly male, mostly upper-class people show all too clearly in its tendency to parade the same faces over and over
Meanwhile, on that very article:
The atheist movement’s roots in mostly white, mostly male, mostly upper-class people show all too clearly in its tendency to parade the same faces over and over.
Meanwhile, on that very article:
Of all the people you could have paraded around as the featured image on that article, you chose Dawkins. You criticize the atheist movement of “not taking diversity and inclusion more seriously” while perpetuating the very problem you assert is true. You could have chosen prominent, smiley atheist Hemant Mehta (who is just about as recognizable to us atheists as Dawkins). You could have chosen outspoken podcaster, Lalo Dagach. You could have used a photo of Maryam Namazie, Sarah Haider, Gad Saad, Stephanie Guttormson, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or even me. Instead, you chose an old white guy. Don’t get me wrong, I love Dawkins’ work and I take no issue with his face being associated with atheism, but you used his image in an article criticizing the use of such images. I think the problem here, is that regressive rags like Salon push this old, white guy image of atheism and then tell us it’s a problem. It’s not actually. If you ventured out of your own echo chamber, you’d see that the diversity in loud atheist voices is immense, and that you’re the only ones pushing this Dawkinsian image of us. We celebrate our diversity. We love our Middle Eastern ex-Muslims, our southern black voices, our women, our Nigerian humanists, our friendly ex-Jains… we love them all as much as we love our wise, white biologists, neuroscientists, physicists and philosophers.
5 Ways The Regressive Left Is Wrong About Atheism
By Godless Mom
Well-traveled, well-read extreme left atheist mother, wife and writer.