I would start by begging notice of the context of Rev. Peacebang’s comments: she was responding to a Boston Globe article that profiled a group of Boston-area atheists who meet periodically to discuss issues of nonbelief. There was plenty to chew on in the piece–for example, the sad tale of how one group member has been treated poorly by his family for deconversion.

Philocrites’ response to the article was to laugh at the (group members’) notion that they lived in a “sea of religious conformity,” and to point out an ugly comment that the article imputed to a member of the group. I still think that response was inappropriate.

Rev. Peacebang, however, reacted with untrammeled personal scorn. In context, I don’t understand how you can read her opening shot (”Who are these people who still think it’s special and unique to reject traditional images of the Deity?”) without seeing “malice”; it seems to me an unavoidable conclusion that her entire intent was to mock and insult the subjects of that article. I’m not going to back down from my contention that that comment–and any other like it, regardless of whether the target is a theist or atheist or UU or not–is deeply inappropriate. Attacking a person for considering her own (a)theological viewpoint “special” and “unique” is, I submit, fundamentally contrary to the Fourth Principle.

Peacebang then widened the slur out to anyone who tells her that he’s “spiritual but not religious”; she described an incredibly insulting response she imagines delivering to such a person. Then, to close, she thanked “the LORD” that the article had not connected the atheists it profiled with Unitarian Universalism.

I’m sorry, but the entire thing is deeply disrespectful of nonbelievers. It conveys the message that Peacebang has nothing but bile for us and that she sees public connections between UUism and “these people who still think it’s special and unique to reject traditional images of the Deity” as unequivocally bad. Well, I am one of “these people,” and I take serious issue with that.

My response was unquestionably harsh; I’m happy to admit that, and if my tone is part of the problem in that thread, I can cop to that too.

But I’m still waiting for you, or Philocrites, or any UU theist to explicitly agree that what Peacebang did was wrong–that it communicated a personal attack on nonbelievers that is seriously out of place in UUism. (Peacebang herself later admitted that her comments consisted of “snotty barbs.” Are she and I alone in that sentiment?) Yes, I wrote some harsh stuff on that thread–but I didn’t attack her theology; I only criticized Peacebang’s (and a few others’) comments. She took a shot at my (non-)beliefs, and at “these people” (sorry, but that phrase has unavoidable overtones of race- and gay-baiting) like me who hold them. I think her offense was far different, and considerably worse.

As I’m sure you have gathered, the inattention that is too often paid to such slights rankles me mightily.

Bless our souls but as Unitarian Universalists we do pride ourselves as precious and different, and cultivate a grandiose sense of self like few can.

Sure–but the people whom Peacebang accused of being grandiose (or actually of thinking their own thoughts “special” and “unique) aren’t, to any of our knowledge, UUs. And I rather think Peacebang’s complaints about being horrifically oppressed by expressions of atheism and/or “spiritual but not religious”-ism betray at least as much grandiosity and smugness as the people she criticizes.

As I said on the initial thread, though, I submit that every person’s theological view is “special” and “unique,” and that we all have every right to treat our perspectives (and expect them to be treated) that way. Peacebang’s point obviously comes from her idea that garden-variety atheism–i.e., dissent from the traditional notion of “God”–is a been-there, done-that idea that’s entirely old hat. Her point is that these atheists are treating a certain idea as important when, she declares, it clearly isn’t.

I think she’s wrong, and more to the point I think she has no right to demand that other people find important (or interesting or “special” and “unique”) the same ideas that she does. I contend that “reject[ing] traditional images of the Deity” (just like lauding “Christ’s love,” or speaking of “God moving within me,” or…) is every bit as special and unique as a free and responsible human being decides it is.

You want me to read the question literally? Okay–well, we’re atheists. We don’t believe in gods as we understand them, and we who have adopted the “atheist” label think that matters. Obviously there are a lot more “truth[s]” to be told by any atheist, or group of same; but that’s the general one.

If you don’t like the way you and your ken are being treated, stand up and demand something.

That’s exactly what I see myself doing here, on Philocrites, and elsewhere. I contend that atheists and other nonbelievers get pasted considerably more frequently–and on considerably more offensive terms–by prominent UUs than is generally understood. “Standing up” is my Net raison d’etre; there are distressingly few people who are doing so.

Don’t talk yourself out of getting a blog….

Far from it! It’s currently under construction.

Consider dropping the veil of anonymity.

Well, that has its perks. When a prominent, nationally-known UU minister decides to hide behind a pseudonym while smacking nonbelievers around, I’m not sure that I want to forego the benefits of anonymity to respond.