Recently Greta Christina wrote an article for her blog entitled, "Does Social Justice Activism Mean Mission Drift for Atheism and Skepticism?"

In it she asks the question

If the atheist and skeptical movements focus on political and social justice issues, will that constitute mission drift?

She answers her own question with a "No"

She states that she and other people of like mind are advocating two things

(1) that these movements expand the focus of their existing missions into new areas having to do with politics and social justice, in ways that are consistent with those existing missions and that constitute clear overlap between those missions and these issues;

(2) that the organizations in these movements pay attention to these issues in internal matters, such as hiring and event organizing.

She also asks this rhetorical question not once but twice:

Why should the agenda get to be set by the old guard?

While I have issues with both her goals, I take particular issue with her second statement. She elucidates her second point:

Does it constitute mission drift for skeptical and atheist organizations to adopt fair hiring practices and be equal opportunity employers? To have day care at meetings and conferences? To have student rates for conferences? To have meetings and events near public transportation, as much as possible? To have sign language interpreters at events? To have events at locations that are wheelchair accessible?

How would any of this change the mission of these organizations? Any more than it would change the mission of IBM, or the Audubon Society?

And if it wouldn’t… then why would it be mission drift for skeptical and atheist organizations to adopt affirmative action practices in booking speakers? To oppose the overt harassment and misogyny persistently aimed at women in our communities? To have codes of conduct at conferences?

When she shared the link to her article on Facebook, I posted a question to her (see attached image)

scott1328 wrote:Who is this old guard you refer to twice? Which skeptic/atheist organization does not follow equal oppurtunity employment? Which conferences have not been handicap accessible? Sign language interpretation is a great idea, are there any volunteer interpreters in the conference organizer's membership, is the membership [willing] to foot the bill for professional interpreters?

Greta Christina wrote:That's sort of the point. Most organizations in this movement already have some internal policies in place having to do with equality and social justice. It therefore does not make sense for people to argue that additional internal policies along these lines, intended to make the organizations more welcoming and accessible to more people -- such as having anti-harassment policies at conferences, or doing affirmative action to get more diversity of speakers at conferences and events, or opposing the overt harassment and misogyny persistently aimed at women in our communities -- somehow constitutes "mission drift."

scott1328 wrote:Forgive me if I misunderstood your meaning. I got the impression from your blog posting that atheist/skeptic organizations were being locked into exclusionary policies by an entrenched leadership (the "old guard") and were resisting change because of "mission drift" If that is not the case, then I definitely missed the point of your posting.

Greta Christina wrote:The point of the article is that:

A) some organizations are doing exactly that: resisting change in areas that clearly are within their mission, and are citing "mission drift" as the reason;

many people in the community are pressing organizations to make these changes -- and other people are pressing organizations *not* to make them, and are citing "mission drift" as the reason.

scott1328 wrote:So again I ask which organizations, and who is helming these organizations? I do not want to be involved with them, or at least I want to be one of those pressuring them for change.

Greta Christina wrote:Does anyone have the energy to get [Tim] caught up on the debates and fights about this over the last two years? I don't know if I have it in me right now.

scott1328 wrote:I guess I am beginning to understand now.

Am I being dense, or did Christina accuse one or more of the various secular and atheist organizations of refusing to change discriminatory and inclusiveness policies? And if so, did she then just refuse to actually name them?

Fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy night.


Edit: I've always wanted to use that line, and I can think of no more appropriate context. Especially because everything about that line, and the scene in which it resides, and the film in which that scene resides, could easily give the Apelust-et-al crowd apoplectic fits - although none of it should. (Besides, I don't often get a chance to do Bette Davis. Impressive, isn't it?)

I just posted this on her blog ... let's see how she replies ...

We Don't Need Yet Another "Ideology"

At bottom, this is a non-problem. It's a non-problem because atheism, in its rigorous formulation, is nothing more than a refusal to accept uncritically unsupported, blind supernaturalist assertions. In short, it consists of "YOU assert that your magic man exists, YOU support your assertions".

As a corollary of consisting of a suspicion of blind assertions from the supernaturalist camp, consistency demands that the same suspicion be directed at other blind assertions too. Which leads inexorably to the conclusion that one should be suspicious of any attempt to peddle an ideology, because at bottom, ideologies are founded upon the treatment of one or more blind assertions as purportedly constituting fact. Since we reject this when supernaturalists try to force this upon us, we should reject it from other quarters too. Indeed, any genuinely rigorous approach to the subject should lead one to reject ideology itself as purportedly constituting some privileged brand of "knowledge". We should not need an "ideology" to tell us to treat our fellow human beings as such, all we need in order to do this is the evidence, available in abundance, of what happens when we don't do this.

Indeed, trying to graft an ideology onto atheism only succeeds in providing the more duplicitous supernaturalists with a "justification" for their peddling the "atheism is a belief" canard, one which those who have been working hard to dismantle don't want to see given new life by mistaken attempts to bolt arbitrary top-down decrees onto atheism. We should be in the business of subjecting such decrees to critical examination, not accepting them uncritically in the same manner that supernaturalists accept their pet collections of top-down decrees. Instead of building yet another ideology, and frankly, humans should be well and truly sick of these by now, given the pernicious influence they've exerted over history and human affairs,we should be in the business of pushing for valid objectives on the basis of evidence that those objectives are valid, and evidence of the harm dispensed to recipients of the relevant actions when those objectives are dismissed from the policy arena.

I don't need an ideology to tell me to treat women as fellow human beings. All I need is the abundant evidence of the harm inflicted upon women when they're not treated as human beings. Same goes for ethnic minorities, the disabled, the LGBT community, etc. We should be leaving ideology to supernaturalists, right-wing politicians and "prosperity theology via austerity" economists.

EDIT: comment posted here.

Given http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta ... -this.html I'm pretty sure that this talk about expanding into ideology is code for making the likes of Rebecca Watson in charge of everything and kicking people like Paula Kirby to the curb. Also Richard Dawkins who, as far as I know, is the only person paying big money to make day care available.

That's a specific of a general problem. When people talk about "ideology" it usually means "my favorite ideology."

Although atheism is not incompatible with social justice it is not essential to it either

For one can have no belief and still be a racist or misogynist or homophobe or transphobe

Equally one can have a belief and be none of those so one should avoid unnecessary stereotypes

When one speaks of the atheist community one is specifically referring to the online atheist community

The online atheist community is a small percentage of the total atheist community so is not that representative

The division within the atheist community is exclusively that of the online atheist community so may be exaggerated

Calilasseia wrote:Indeed, trying to graft an ideology onto atheism only succeeds in providing the more duplicitous supernaturalists with a "justification" for their peddling the "atheism is a belief" canard, one which those who have been working.

In my experience, the ideologies that these people tend to promote (as good as they might be) actually hindered me. It made leaving religion more difficult.

There were many times near the beginning, when I had people trying to convince me to return to religion, where people would tell me all the reasons the "Atheist ideology" was bad and not something I could fully support. I would say that there is no atheist ideology and they would just point to one of the atheist organizations on the internet. It lead to a lot of confusion, because there was so much I hadn't worked out yet and at the same time I did not fully agree with the ideology being promoted and the last thing I wanted was to adopt another religion. It made the transition longer and added grief and confusion to the process.

But mine is only one experience, of course.

I don't see avoiding avoidable discrimination as 'mission drift' for any organisation, since it would seem to be an issue which should be essentially independent of the nature of the organisation.

Personally, if I was running an atheist organisation and someone came along suggesting that the organisation should adopt positive-discrimination policies, if I disagreed with their suggestion it would not be for reasons of 'mission creep' but because I disagreed with it on a standalone basis.

'Mission creep' would be the kind of thing I would think of when it came to someone suggesting something I thought was a good idea, but which seemed to be of no obvious relevance to the organisation given its aims and historical 'reach' ("Hey, why don't we have a few speakers on animal welfare, or the evils of promoting unhealthy body images?").

I'd also be distinctly wary of explicitly writing down some things as policies even if I did agree with them and was prepared to consider doing them.
If I thought some positive discrimination for conference speaker choice might work out OK, I might well be prepared to skew my choice of speakers away from what I thought was a purely merit-based choice, or to give the benefit of the doubt to a speaker I knew less well than some others, but if I was going to do that, I'd keep my reasons to myself not simply to avoid people thinking that my choices had been more influenced than they might actually have been, but also to avoid tying my hands in future if it didn't seem to be working out.
I'd far rather be someone who seemed to have a different approach than someone who had committed myself to their approach and then become a traitor by changing my mind when it didn't seem to be working.

I'd also be wary of whether explicitly adopting some particular policies was just making a rod for my own back, in that if I did sign up to their ideas and the outcome wasn't what they wanted, would they just be likely to keep demanding more changes rather than wondering whether their desired outcome was actually either feasible or fair.

What "secular/atheist community"? What "mission"? What "movement"? What fucking "ideology"? I am so tired of these self-appointed "leaders of the secular community" and their pompous, narcissistic pontificating bullshit. Who fucking voted for them? Who died and made them pope? Where the fuck do they get off co-opting words like "secular" or "atheist" to suit their own political ends? I've been an atheist longer than many of them have been fucking alive, I don't need them to tell me what to think or what causes I "should' support. Fuck them and the eco-friendly, non-privileged, gender-neutral horse they rode in on.

"Your mission Jim, should you choose to accept is…"

"Fuck off."

laklak wrote:What "secular/atheist community"? What "mission"? What "movement"? What fucking "ideology"? I am so tired of these self-appointed "leaders of the secular community" and their pompous, narcissistic pontificating bullshit. Who fucking voted for them? Who died and made them pope? Where the fuck do they get off co-opting words like "secular" or "atheist" to suit their own political ends? I've been an atheist longer than many of them have been fucking alive, I don't need them to tell me what to think or what causes I "should' support. Fuck them and the eco-friendly, non-privileged, gender-neutral horse they rode in on.

Agreed, I was am atheist when this lot where still on their knees praying to jebus. Now were suppose to bend our knee to them. Well they can fuck off.

The point may be academic but those who are the most vocal in the atheist community on this particular subject
happen to be feminist too : And feminism is most definitely about social justice : So it is that that probably drives
them more than atheism does : In fact given the misogyny of some atheists towards them It most defimitely is their
feminism that drives them : They would be just as driven if they were theist : So being atheist is academic here : After
all having a non belief in imaginary beings does not in and of itself compel one to be an advocate of social justice : Sadly
being a misogynist or racist or homophobe is not incompatible with being an atheist : If only it were though : If only it were

laklak wrote:What "secular/atheist community"? What "mission"? What "movement"? What fucking "ideology"? I am so tired of these self-appointed "leaders of the secular community" and their pompous, narcissistic pontificating bullshit. Who fucking voted for them? Who died and made them pope? Where the fuck do they get off co-opting words like "secular" or "atheist" to suit their own political ends? I've been an atheist longer than many of them have been fucking alive, I don't need them to tell me what to think or what causes I "should' support. Fuck them and the eco-friendly, non-privileged, gender-neutral horse they rode in on.

If they want a 'social justice' movement then they can bloody well think up their own name and campaign under that, instead of trying to modify the meaning of 'atheism' to suit their agenda.
They might even get support from a few more atheists that way, instead of alienating so many of us.

I would have agreed about the name at the very beginning but over nine
months later everyone knows what Atheism Plus is whether they support
it or not : So therefore changing it now would be pointless and confusing

Is it well known outside of the 'atheist community' (and those who comment on it)?

Probably not in its own right but social justice as a general movement is more known
as it has fingers in many pies so to speak : Also remember it is very pro feminist too
And feminism is quite big on university campuses over there so it can definitely grow
The forum it self is not really what it is about : Rather affecting real change in society
Making the world a better place instead of winning debates on the net is where it is at

surreptitious57 wrote:And feminism is most definitely about social justice

And so is socialism. Except when it isn't.
'Feminism' is a label which covers a whole range of ideas, many related to seeking equality-on-average for one particular group of people compared to another (whether in a particular society or in the world at large), but not necessarily for equality between all individuals as individuals.

Among people who believe men and women should have equal power and opportunity, it's quite possible for someone to be a snob, an elitist, a xenophobe, a racist, or to discriminate between people for other reasons (age, weight, height, beliefs, appearance, etc).
On might expect and hope that such views were somewhat rarer among people spending meaningful time and effort concentrating on a particular kind of inequality than among randomly-selected members of the population, but it would seem highly unlikely that such views are nonexistent.

And that's not mentioning the people for whom the label is a convenient cover for female sexism and/or ideas of natural female superiority.

surreptitious57 wrote:In fact given the misogyny of some atheists towards them It most defimitely is their
feminism that drives them.

Well I'd make a significant distinction between:
a) Actual behaviour by known atheists which is not disputed and which most people do agree was misogynist.
b) Actual behaviour by known atheists which is not disputed but where any misogynist nature is far from agreed upon.
c) Behaviour claimed to be by known atheists but which is disputed.
d) Behaviour which, whether claimed or actually provable, was from anonymous people claiming to be atheists.

Much mention seems to be made of behaviour which appears to be in category d).
I'm not aware of a huge amount actually being in category a).

And if they are driven mainly by feminism, then suggestions that maybe they are too focussed on that could explain comments regarding mission drift, if/when such comments actually get made.

tolman wrote:
Well I'd make a significant distinction between:
a) Actual behaviour by known atheists which is not disputed and which most people do agree was misogynist.
b) Actual behaviour by known atheists which is not disputed but where any misogynist nature is far from agreed upon.
c) Behaviour claimed to be by known atheists but which is disputed.
d) Behaviour which, whether claimed or actually provable, was from anonymous people claiming to be atheists.

Much mention seems to be made of behaviour which appears to be in category d).
I'm not aware of a huge amount actually being in category a).

And if they are driven mainly by feminism, then suggestions that maybe they are too focussed on that could explain comments regarding mission drift, if/when such comments actually get made.

On the A+ thread (which is locked) I linked to this blog post by Greta Christina

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/05/08/policing-their-own/

which advocates for shunning those that don't follow Christina's checklist of acceptable behavior and thought. To support her assertion that shunning is necessary, she cites the frequent "harassment" she receives.

Using the categories Tolman gives above, I believe that Christina is using category D to justify shunning of individuals who fall into categories A and B. To implement her plan would unavoidably require individuals and organizations to subscribe to a manifesto. Or as is known to the church denomination I was raised in , a Doctrinal Statement. Such doctrinal statements inevitably have procedures for "heresy" (violations, deviations from doctrine) and apostasy (abandoning doctrine).

this relabeling/repurposing of religious practices must be opposed.

There are misogynistic, racist, xenophobic, homophobic and otherwise bigoted people among atheists
There are misogynistic, racist, xenophobic, homophobic and otherwise bigoted people among theists.

And the converse is also true for both categories. Essentially, atheism, which is lack of belief in god, has nothing to do with anything else, however noble or ignoble. Trying to force-combine atheism with social justice is like trying to combine a refrigerator and a microwave oven. It is illogical, pointless and potentially counter-productive. If it is social justice that you're after, then limiting yourself to atheists severely limits the people and resources you can tap into. Atheists constitute only a small minority of the world's population. The percentage of the world's population interested in social justice issues is much larger.

iamthereforeithink wrote:There are misogynistic, racist, xenophobic, homophobic and otherwise bigoted people among atheists
There are misogynistic, racist, xenophobic, homophobic and otherwise bigoted people among theists.

And the converse is also true for both categories. Essentially, atheism, which is lack of belief in god, has nothing to do with anything else, however noble or ignoble. Trying to force-combine atheism with social justice is like trying to combine a refrigerator and a microwave oven. It is illogical, pointless and potentially counter-productive. If it is social justice that you're after, then limiting yourself to atheists severely limits the people and resources you can tap into. Atheists constitute only a small minority of the world's population. The percentage of the world's population interested in social justice issues is much larger.

Christina may be advocating that Social Justice issues be added to the mission statements of the various secular and atheist organizations, this however is not her main idea in the "Policing their own" posting. She is advocating that the internal policies of the various secular organizations reflect her preferred social justice values and those organizations that don't conform to her checklist of values be shunned. Perhaps through some kind of blacklist.

I never realized until now just what a work of genius Dana Carvey's "Church Lady" character was.