Posted by Siamang on: 11.06.2006 /

At my work, there’s a group of people you could call “Richard’s Posse.” I’m afraid I may have started it.
It started quite simply. Hemant linked from his site the URL of a place where I could download Richard Dawkins’ two-part special on religion, aired only in the UK, called “The Root of All Evil?”
I downloaded it and burned it onto a DVD.
This special includes a memorable scene between Richard Dawkins and the now infamous Ted Haggard, where Haggard seeths with barely-veiled hostility at Dawkins, and eventually orders him to be removed from the premises of the New Life Church for having referred to evolution (according to Dawkins).
The special, “Root of All Evil?” is not one I would share with my Christian friends. It pulls no punches, INCLUDING punches it really should have pulled. There are a couple of moments in it where my wife audibly gasped at Dawkins’ blatant disregard for polite conventions when one speaks of the religions of others.
This video is a graceless, tactless polemic, but also a stunning wake up for atheists. My wife remarked that it was just amazing to hear another person saying, right there on television (if not on American television) some of the things that she’s thought, but would never say.
I burned a copy of the video to share with a friend at work who I knew was an atheist. I did this surreptitiously, as there are a few friends at work who are Christian, and I didn’t want to do anything to upset the amity.
So I slipped him the disc, and a surprising thing happened. I got calls from a couple other people who wanted copies. These are people I’d known for years, but I didn’t know their beliefs. Within a few days, I found out that there were quite a few atheists here among my friends, and I didn’t know it. Suddenly we began to speak about Dawkins, and Sam Harris, and Julia Sweeney. All in hushed tones. All in our offices with closed doors, changing the subject when a friend outside the posse poked in.
A couple days ago, Boing-Boing ran the image above, “Richard Has a Posse.” The more I thought about it, the more I understood the feeling. After all, I had started a “Richard’s Posse” at my work without intending to.
A couple of weekends ago, our posse went to go see Richard Dawkins speak at Caltech. There, lots of other people waited in line for hours in the hot sun to get a chance at a cancellation ticket to the sold-out event. A huge line snaked through the building to get a chance at a signed book.

But if you asked me what was new or notable or special about Dawkins’ book, I’d be hard-pressed to tell you. If you asked me who my favorite public atheist was, I wouldn’t hesitate to say “Julia Sweeney”. But here we all were lining up for Dawkins like he was a rock-star.
I started to think about other people having my similar experience. Dawkins is popular because he has a posse. He has a posse because for one reason or another he’s caused people to signify as atheists, and stand up in the crowd and notice each other.
It’s like it’s the 1980’s and the closeted gay people have some coded imagery to notice each other in a crowd. “Wow, I thought I was the only one,” is becoming something less likely. Dawkins’ book, “The God Delusion” is on the bestseller lists, and with that comes some sense of “Gee, I’m not alone in my beliefs.”
Now, if I had to choose the person I’d want to be the banner-waver for atheism, it wouldn’t be Dawkins. I think his writing on atheism is poor, and his tone and arguments are so tone-deaf as to be nearly useless. I’d pick Julia Sweeney any day. Or the infinitely patient and well-mannered Michael Shermer. I haven’t read Daniel Dennett, but he strikes me as having the soul of a poet-philosopher.
But we’ve got Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. It says a lot that I think that Dawkins is the lesser of those two evils. But Dawkins has a posse. To atheists, for better or worse, it’s Dawkins’ world and we just live in it.
I’ve been thinking about the need to signify. People really need to be able to say, “I’m with that guy.” They line up behind philosophical leaders. People have got the Jesus bumperstickers and Jesus fish… sort of to say “I’m with Him.” That helps, I think. I wish atheists had a better “him” for us to say we’re with.
But for now, all atheists, I think as far as the general public understands, are in “Richard’s posse.” We’re going to be lumped into Richard’s posse whether we like it or not.
Who are your recommendations for the leader of an atheist posse? What are your thoughts on the idea that people line up behind a philosopher, is that helpful or not? What are the advantages or disadvantages to having that person be historical rather than living now?
And for the conspiracy-minded among us, is there any truth to the rumor that Haggard was taken down because he crossed the Great and Powerful Dawkins (PBUH)?

Comment by: Karen
1I felt, waiting in line for Dawkins, some kinship with the 19th century crowds who used to throng to the speeches of agnostic Robert Ingersoll. Of course, in Ingersoll’s day he had very little to compete with for an audience. But I imagine the freshness and audacity of both men’s message probably holds similar appeal.
I also think Dawkins is gaining a “posse” precisely because he does have the audacity to say the gasp-inducing things that have so villified him in the religious community. Things most atheists might privately believe but would never articulate for fear of offending. We wouldn’t say it ourselves, but we’re glad somebody’s doing it!
One of the things he does that other “New Atheists” don’t necessarily do is issue sort of a call to action (to borrow an evangelical phrase). When he urged non-believers at Caltech to join together and start speaking out, and there was a raucous response, I felt for a moment like I might be part of an atheist “rabble” (get the pitchforks and light the torches!) ;-)
Where I think atheists are going to differ from believers who are in “His Club” is that atheists aren’t so prone to the “cult of personality” that’s been discussed in the media this week in reference to the Haggard scandal.
Evangelicals really do idolize the Haggards and the Dobsons and the Chuck Smiths because they attribute “divine annointing” to them. It seems to me that Brian McLaren gets that kind of “rock star” treatment from postmodernist believers. Atheists - not so much. We’re just not inclined to give anybody a “pass” like that. Which is a more healthy way of dealing with people, in my view anyway.
Comment by: David S
2I’ve said before that I think it’s worth noting that this is all backlash from the religious extremism we’ve seen in/from America and the Middle East lately. I doubt any atheists really care if people want to believe supernatural notions… but when people are being threatened and killed daily over faith and national politics have arguably been taken over by “theo-cons”, it’s not surprising when the non-religious start to stand up.
If the religious clean house a bit and reign in some of their more psycho brethren, the atheists will probably go back not caring in the least about religion again.
Comment by: NCxian
3I think the “rock star” treatment that Brian McLaren receives, since it is not generally attributed to “divine annointing”, will be exactly what we see Dawkins and Harris receiving as their publishers continue to work the star-making machinery. Just like McLaren, they are not making waves so much as they have caught a wave and are riding it.
Comment by: NCxian
4I just reread my last post. I didn’t mean for it to sound abrupt, and certainly not critical.
I admire the ability of McLaren, Dawkins, and Harris (and their publishers) to sense when there is something in the air and put it to paper. It is really more meaningful for me to read about something that is a movement of many people, than it is to read amazing things that one person has thought of. Your comments here, Siamang, Karen and David, suggest to me that you are glad to hear somebody speaking your minds. Just as I am glad to hear McLaren speaking mine.
Mclaren says something like, “other people are thinking the same as I am, I just seem to be able to get it down on paper first”. I think that may be the same with Dawkins and Harris.
Comment by: Mike C
5I agree with NCXian about McLaren just being the first to speak what others are already thinking.
Big difference though between McLaren, Dawkins and Harris though is that Brian is one of the most gracious, inclusive, and irenic guys I know while, as Siamang said, Dawkins (and Harris) are typically graceless and tactless with those they disagree with. I’m glad that atheists have people who can speak for their beliefs in the public sphere; I just wish these atheists were more in the mold of Hemant’s “friendly” atheist than in the angry, intolerant mold of Dawkins.
Comment by: Siamang
6I plan on having a post about Julia Sweeney, Mike.
Hopefully we can get some friendlier voices.
Comment by: Karen
7I don’t think Dawkins is tactless or graceless. I think he doesn’t mince words and that upsets people, particularly when it comes to criticizing religion.
And no, he’s not inclusive - quite the contrary. ;-)
But he’s unfailingly polite and graceful in his dealings even with people who vehemently disagree with him. At least from what I’ve seen in person and on TV.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
8Karen, I didn’t think Dawkins was polite to Haggard - but Haggard wasn’t polite to him either.
I think he is very articulate but I wouldn’t call him tactful, because he makes no effort that I can discern not to say things in a way that may offend religious people.
He can certainly be cordial and friendly - I’ve seen that in the interviews.
Siamang, I did finally hear Julia Sweeney on the Humanist News Network podcast - I enjoyed her very much.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
9Brian McLaren is one of the friendliest most congenial Christians I’ve met; and he’s a very engaging speaker; and he can answer questions without getting riled up.
But a lot of Christians wouldn’t accept him as a spokesperson because they think his theology is in error. The chosen spokesperson can only be your spokesperson if you feel they truly represent your position.
Comment by: Julie Marie
10Julia Sweeny is charming. I really enjoy listening to her.
Comment by: NCxian
11Yes, I think that is why the similarity between Dawkins and McLaren occurred to me in my first post. McLaren is speaking to/for a group of folks who feel marginalized by the current public dialogue which is dominated by the hyper-conservative religous crowd. I am thinking that Hawkins performs a similar service for some atheists.
You all have convinced me I need to get on board about this Julie Sweeney. What do you recommend I sample?
Comment by: NCxian
12Oops, I meant Dawkins!
Comment by: Karen
13His whole point (I’m talking Dawkins here) is NOT to be tactful about religion. He feels that the more dangerous elements of religion have been given a “pass” because religion is one of those subjects that shouldn’t be talked about critically for fear of being tactless and offensive, and that won’t do when it comes to religion.
Meanwhile, orthodox religious groups do things like oppress women, indoctrinate children, teach against science, and even incite followers to violence. Yet because of this uber-concern about religion, there’s extreme reluctance to criticize them - not only by more moderate believers, but also by unbelievers.
That’s the barrier he and Sam Harris and others are trying to break through. I realize it’s not always pleasant, or the most comfortable way to handle things, but they think that it’s necessary.
Comment by: Mike C
14IMHO, both Dawkins and Haggard were embarrassing to watch in that video clip. Personally I wouldn’t want to be associated with either one of them.
I don’t think Dawkins helped matters though by starting his conversation by comparing Haggard’s church service to a Nazi rally. That just seems unnecessarily rude, and, yes, tactless.
Dawkins may be trying to break through some barriers, but somehow I doubt these offensive tactics are likely to be very effective in the long run. Ironically, in tone, attitude, and dogmatism Dawkins actually strikes me as the atheist equivalent of Mark Driscoll! Both seem to think that using insults and false characterizations of their opponenets is the best way to get their message across.
Again, I think Hemant’s approach if far preferable and effective. As they say, you’ll catch more flies with honey than with vineagar.
I’d like to hear more about this Julia Sweeny… any links I should follow?
-Mike
Comment by: TXatheist
15Mike C,
Do you think there is a difference in the way we as Americans don’t usually hear religion degraded or put down where in Britain Dawkins is probably more in line with his way of speaking? I just think Europe is farther along the path in letting go of religion and Dawkins is stating commonly accepted things where we here in the US are not used to it.
Comment by: cautiousmaniac
16I think the “problem” is that Europe had its time in which churches helped run countries, and vice versa. Our First Amendment directly blocks this integration of faith into government (and vice versa) so we’ve never had the unpleasant experience of theocracy.
Comment by: Karen
17Here’s Julia’s website, where she’s recently put up some audio clips from her one-woman show, Letting Go of God. The whole show is available now on CD:
http://www.juliasweeney.com/letting_go_mini/audio4.html
Comment by: Mike C
18I don’t know TX. I’ve spent some time in Britain, but in general I find Brits to be even more polite than us Americans. I would imagine that Dawkin’s “in-your-face” style would stand out even more over there.
Now in France, well, that’s another story… :)
Comment by: NCxian
19Thanks for the link, Karen!
Comment by: Richard Dawkins Has A Posse « The Thought Menagerie
20 11/24/06 1:49 AM | Comment Link |[...] <ul><li><a href="http://www.off-the-map.org/atheist/2006/11/06/richard-dawkins-has-a-posse/ ">The eBay Athiest</a></li><li><a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2006/11/02/richard_dawkins_has_.html ">Misha</a></li><li><a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=richard+dawkins+posse">A revealing Google search</a></li> </ul> [...]