The A-Word?

I sometimes think that in another life, I could have been a linguist, for I am always fascinated by language and how it evolves, how certain vernaculars, colloquiums, and slang develop within a area that shares a common language.

You ever heard a New Yorker and a back-woods Georgian talk to each other? Oh, it’s a Bach symphony for my ears.

Yet what I find truly interesting about the evolution of language is how words develop certain connotations irrespective of their initial denotation. This manipulation of these connotations can be a very effective tool in political rhetoric, something of which the Conservative Right have been true masters. It is as if ever Republican for the past sixty years really paid attention when the teacher went over the major themes in “1984″ in English class, and so are now putting them to practice.

The Conservative Right has systematically taken certain words and twisted them in order to taint the political waters of discourse, making it impossible to instigate debate without instigating tempers. Political labels like, “pro-life, “patriot act,” and “intelligent design” are all fitting examples of how the Conservative Right has been able to manipulate language in order to coerce less-than-informed people to make decisions on important issues simply on the basis of the “emotive” words employed.

If you’re not “pro-life,” then what option does that logically leave you with? Anti-life? If you’re not pro-life than you must be against life, you evil, godless bastard! Against the Patriot Act? You commie, pinko traitor! You want the evildoers to win, don’t you? Against intelligent design? What are you, a retard? You unprogressive, ignorant ape! Why not get in a cage and fling your feces?

The conservatives have even gotten their language-raping hands on words that aren’t inherently “bad” or “negative” but nevertheless have been infused with a context that is now politically incendiary; words like, “liberal,” “secular,” and “atheist.”

Especially atheist.

It’s incredibly shocking to me how much repugnance the conservatives have attached to the word “atheist,” and how successful they have been in making that connotation stick. I can only attribute this success to not only the lack of any real reform in maintaining secularism in our public affairs (not to mention that type of controversy attached to any atheist who happens to be in the public eye), but also the amount of hostility I’ve personally received by random people when asked of my religious affiliation.

Now I must make mention that I’m not the kind of guy who obnoxiously prances around branding my atheism as a badge of honor (in fact I make it my M.O. not to prance at all). I will say that a bit of the stigma associated with atheism has been due to other atheists – militant atheist (or perhaps a better term would be anti-theists) who affront people with their beliefs (or non-beliefs) with the same type of arrogance and “moral” superiority most religious people have when confronted with someone who doesn’t subscribe to the same belief system as they do. I find such attitudes despicable and inexcusable unilaterally, irrespective on what side of the political (or in this case, philosophical/epistemological) fence they happen to be on. By no means do I feel the need to educate the “misinformed” or “indoctrinated” simply because I’ve chosen to dedicate more time than the average person in investigating and studying the beliefs and systems of thought which were shoved down my throat since birth more closely. I don’t think going to college and reading certain books gives me any right to condescend and preach.

And so it is with great surprise when I do decide to tell people my religious (or non-religious) beliefs that I get the most aggressive responses. When I say I’m an atheist, it is as if I’m saying in one breathe: “You, dear sir or madam, are a stupid, silly fool for believing in such fantasies. Do you also believe the stories of Mother Goose and the Brothers Grimm? I say ‘pshaw’ to you and your entire foundation of knowledge. Oh, and P.S.: Fuck you and the religion you rode in on.”

That must be what most people think I’m saying, because how else could one explain these explosive, knee-jerk reactions?. You’d think I was asking them permission to pull down my pants and shit on their shoes. And dear reader, you must believe me when I say I try to avoid having religious discussions with people because such endeavors inevitably all end the same way: when the smoke clears, people walk away thinking the same they did before, the only new thought being that the OTHER guy is the stupidest asshole on the planet. It’s a futile social exercise, and so I do my best not to instigate any heated debates on the matter in public.

I say “atheist” and people respond as if I’m demanding them to justify their core system of beliefs right there and then. The fact that I chose NOT to subscribe to their beliefs is something that they can’t immediately grasp and understand. And because they cannot fathom how someone can purposely choose to be an atheist, they lash out and defend their beliefs, trying their damnedest to convince me how wrong I truly am about the illegitimacy of their beliefs (and for the record: this only happens when I meet Christians; I’ve never had this issue with the random Muslims or Jews I meet in public).

So then after they spew their torrent of a defense, I simply look back blankly as if to say, “Okay, well, if it’s work for you…” and from there they proceed to excuse themselves, surly thinking I’m an immoral nihilist who secretly wishes for the total demise of life itself.

I don’t believe, like some atheists and anti-theists, that religion should be extracted from our culture entirely, as if it were some cancer that needs to be surgical removed in order to save the patient. If religion gives your life meaning and the extra incentive to be a good, moral person, then I’m all for it. Just don’t push it on me and the public sector.

You can say I’m more of a Dan Dennett than a Richard Dawkins on the subject.

I’ve told another atheist friend of mine about these socially awkward situations, and he disappointingly shook his head as if I should have know better. “Frank,” he said, “the first thing you learn when you an atheist is that you don’t go around saying you’re an atheist.”

“Then what do you say you are?” I asked. “I mean, there’s a reason why a word like ‘atheist’ exits. What’s the point of having the word if we can’t use it?”

He took a moment to look at me like I was a naïve child and said: “You tell them you’re non-religious.”

“That’s it?” I asked.

“Yep. I say it so as to avoid that conversation from happening. I don’t want to deal with it. So I just say I’m non-religious or agnostic and that usually shuts them up.”

“But that’s so stupid,” I countered.

“Hey: you wanna continue having these episodes, but all means, keep using ‘atheist.’”

Though I would eventually agree with my friend’s sentiments, I still had this nagging sense of frustration about the whole issue: it doesn’t have to be this way. I shouldn’t have to keep from saying a certain word due to the off-chance of someone getting explosively emotional. It’s censorship of the most sophisticated kind (leave it to the conservatives for that). What are we, children? We can say certain words around each other lest we get into a tantrum? It’s absurd.

I believe what I’m saying unequivocally, but alas, only in theory. My story about my “coming out” with my mother is a prime example of my inability to apply that theory in practice (to read that, go here)

And it’s these kinds of experiences that make me wonder: Is Dawkins right? Should we have a new word to replace ‘atheist’?