I am a smart-car owner. The smart brand is referred to as 'smart', lowercase by design, one-word, as you might say 'Honda' or 'Mini'. This is a great little car, and the only micro-sub compact sold on American shores. It's a one-liter, 70 horsepower, mid-engine car which is easy to park and gets 41 mph highway...that's the best MPG of any gas-using car in America, right behind the hybrids but at about 10K less to buy. Available in the U.S. since early 2008, the smart has been making inroads through Roger Penske's smart dealers into the American consciousness.
As a member of the Smart Car of America Forums (SCOA), I participate with other enthusiastic owners about all things smart.....the questions we're asked, aftermarket accessories, everything regarding dealers, maintenance, perks and quirks with the car, etc.
Who buys smarts? My answer to this question might have be: 'progressive, out-of-the-box thinkers with a penchant for embracing new ideas, with a tendency toward size-economy and the green movement'. It ain't necessarily so.
Sadly, this blog is about discrimination, which is something atheists face every day. See if you agree.
On the SCOA forum, I happened to be browsing the off-topic threads and saw that some smart-owners had started threads about who among them might be gay, with another thread asking who their fellow vegetarians/vegans were. Reading the threads myself, it seemed people were playing nicely and simply voicing another common interest among a receptive, progressive audience of other forum members clearly open to new ideas.
That was, until I started the 'Who here is an atheist smart-owner' thread. Here's what I wrote:
'Ok, I've seen the separate Gay and Vegan smart-owner threads, very interesting!
Here's my question: How many atheists drive smarts?
Is there any correlation between our maverick embrace of a new automotive paradigm and those who self-describe as atheists/agnostics/secularists/non-religious or non-believers of some sort?
The car itself represents a lot in my opinion: a willingness to be different, a witting/unwitting embrace of the green-movement and less oil-dependence, some-degree of environmental conscience, a willingness to favor economy of size over the 'bigger is better' mentality (even with threat of derision), and a more liberal/progressive political population (I realize there will be exceptions).
My hypothesis is that atheists would be over-represented by smart-car owners (per-capita).
This is by no means a scientific poll, but I am curious to see the responses.
Thanks in advance'.
Reasonable enough, wouldn't you say? Just like the gay and vegan threads, it's natural to ask who among other out-of-the-box thinkers might have left traditional ideas like religion, right?
Wrong. The thread was immediately closed by an admin with this comment.
'Forget it.“The following topics and links are prohibited on Smart Car of America Forums: Religion, Death Penalty, and Politics”
Ok, since when does identifying as an atheist necessarily constitute a religious argument or even religion? Atheism by definition is the *rejection* of religion as it literally means 'without theism' from the Greek form, 'theos'. A-theos is literally 'without god or belief in god'.
Ostensibly, the forum admins are trying to avoid controversy which might lead to pages of in-fighting (which people can choose to ignore), but what good is a forum moderator if they can't even be bothered to moderate potentially volatile threads? Again, this was in the 'off-topic' section which should mean smart-owners are free to discuss issues, as long as it doesn't devolve into pure name-calling and threats, and these threads can be moderated.
Instead, the powers-that-be at SCOA seem to feel more comfortable with outright censorship based on the 'rules', but I would think censorship is far more volatile than moderating a 'potentially' controversial thread. Those who find these threads offensive always have the choice of ignoring them.
My post was merely an informal poll, like the vegan and gay threads, and was specifically posed to see who among my fellow-smart drivers shared my lack of belief in god(s). This rule, as applied, would necessarily mean that nobody could ever identify as any religion on the forum, ever.
Look what another admin said when I complained about censorship. Quoted in relevant part:
By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.
Ok, so the identifying as an atheist clearly doesn't fall into these categories, yet the thread about which smart-owners might be gay certainly *does*. Talk about selective application of rules. The reader will note that she had nothing to say in her defense after she was called out on this. Of course not. There is a clear double-standard at work.
My friends, this is a clear case of censorship, even if it's in the 'rules'. Sometimes, rules are wrong or too-broadly applied. After all, there used to be little rules about minorities being segregated from the majority, or women not being allowed to vote.
In this day and age, it's shocking that this still happens, but sadly not surprising. What's even more distressing is the lack of visible protests from other members who might be atheists or know agnostics, or understand the injustice that's happening. There were a few on that forum in support, but mostly....silence and thus, a form of complicity.
Here's what the smug admin had to say when I complained about the thread closure in a private message:
Whatever flood of protests you are hoping for is going the other way (by PM) – it has been positive for the action taken. You are, so far, alone in this.If you are in need of the support of atheists owning smarts, you are free to participate in atheist sites elsewhere, and ask the same question. As a start you might try something at groups.yahoo or groups.google*
* Full URL omitted to avoid linking.
I see. So it's ok for a smart-owner to ask, in an off-topic section, about who in the forum might be gay or vegan (controversial for many), even though talking about 'sexually-oriented' content is in clear violation of the forum rules. Why is it not permissible to ask who might be atheist even though by itself it's not a religious argument? Add to that the smug way in which the admin tries to convince me I am 'alone in this' which is probably why he thought he could get away with such a thing. You see, fellow non-believers...this is exactly why some theists feel they can abuse non-believers.. We seek fair treatment, but we still get abuse and discrimination because some feel that we're such an insignificant or silent minority that we just don't matter. This is exactly why we need to be out of that 'other closet' en-masse as we've seen with the success of the gay-movement.
Tell someone they can't talk about being 'African' or 'Italian' and there would be hell to pay. Tell someone they can't mention that they are a Christian or Jew and you'd see a backlash. Why is the mere mention of identification with 'atheism' seen as a 'religious' statement? By this logic, mentioning that you're abstinent would be sexual harassment?
This may all seem trivial, but it's still discrimination, and it's a reflection of the 'majority rules' scenario which has historically trampled on the rights of the minority, simply because it was smugly thought that the majority could get away with it. As long as people are cowed into silence, we will never have a collective voice, and this is why it's so important for minorities, especially the most-hated minority (atheists) all over the world to speak out, be heard, be seen.
When people realize how populous this abused minority is, they might think twice about being so cavalier with discrimination, even in the small, annoying ways which happen every day.
Sure, most of us on the SCOA drive 'smart' cars, but by no means should anyone assume that all of us are logical, forward-thinking, progressive or even smart. It makes me very glad I didn't 'become a member' and give them my hard-earned money....but apparently they think atheists are such a tiny, insignificant minority that our opinions and support just don't matter. ...even in such a tiny-sub group known as 'Smart-Car Owners of America'.
This is more than just discrimination on an obscure forum. It's a reflection of the world we all still live in, and a small core-sample of daily abuses.
I recommend that all of you who identify with labels such as atheist, agnostic, freethinker, secularist, rationalist, non-theist, etc. make yourselves known. The sooner people realize that they can't get away with blatant discrimination and abuse, the sooner we'll get the fair-treatment we're asking for.
-dB-
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Honestly, since the term was coined atheism has been a religious keyword. Discussing weather or not one believes in any number of Gods (be it 1, 200, or 0) is in and of itself a discussion about religion. I do disagree with how the topic was shutdown, but let's not try to muddy things by saying atheism is not a religion and therefore not subject to the rules. Atheism is quite clearly a religious (or more correctly an anti-religious) topic.
What I think is happening at SCOA has less to do with the topic at hand though. From what I'm seeing, a lot of this is coming not from all the moderators or the owners, but from one (relatively new) moderator that's starting to assert his personal belief set via his role in moderating the board.
To that point, I started a separate thread in the policy area, asking for some clarity on how the process works and asking for a feedback mechanism. I'm hoping that will help leverage things enough to allow formerly "taboo" topics to be discussed as long as things remain civil.
Personally, I've found the site taking a more and more right-wing slant over the past few year or so. Right wing rants and topics are allowed to go on (or are "watched") for a long while, but anything even remotely to the left of center is shutdown quick. My membership is coming up for renewing in the near future, and I'm starting to debate internally if I can justify supporting a board that allows things like this to happen.
Hi Woody. You can definitely make the case that an 'atheist' doesn't believe in god, but it's an identifying label, not a religious argument unto itself and certainly *not* a religion any more than abstinence is a form of sex.
Atheism doesn't make any arguments, it's just a descriptive term which literally means, 'without theism' and not 'anti-theism' by definition.
There is no pressure on any theist when I merely self-define as an atheist. Similarly, I am not under-threat if someone merely identifies as a theist of some stripe. Labels are one thing, making arguments is another. My intention was only to discover other smart-car atheists, not argue with theists.
I think it's personal bias though namely due to the inconsistent manner in which the 'rules' are being applied in this case.
I think we generally agree here, and I can't help feel slighted, in a big way. If I were witnessing such a debacle, even as a former theist I'd still be upset.
I would most certainly not be offended if someone started a thread about 'who here is a Southern-Baptist smart owner' as long as I could get equal treatment. Likewise, I wouldn't be offended by someone merely calling themselves a Christian as I would self-identify as an atheist.
We all know we exist, right? It's not like not-saying it solves anything, but all of this censorship does bring up free-speech issues, private forum or not.
BTW it seems my thread on censorship was quietly deleted.
Woody I can't edit my comment but meant to add, 'thanks a lot for your insight and for reading my blog post!'. :D
I'm glad to report that the forum in question (SCOA) has been taken over by yet another company, has become more blatantly ad-driven and the new mods have either kicked or lost much of their core membership to competing sites.
I don't believe in Karma, but I enjoy the sweet, sweet taste of it when it arrives.
Post a Comment