On Friday CFI held an event with the producer of the Agenda, Wodek Szemberg, on the topic of why we see so few atheists in the media. I *really* wanted to go - but again the whole sick thing got in the way.
I heard feedback about the event that wasn’t so hot, on point in particular stuck out to me where one of the members of our group said he was ignoring/disregarding scientific fact. As someone who has spent the last few years fighting for rationality and science that tickled me wrong. However - when I dug for more info the “truth” of the matter came out.
Some people in the crowd were getting angry because the speaker wasn’t feeling sorry for atheists. Because he was telling it like it is. He claimed that all shows that are free of God and religion, are essentially secular - like a sporting game.
Now I can see why people would get angry about this. Because when they think “secular television” they think TV that is actually catering to their… “movement” or whatever. They are thinking a show ABOUT atheism/secular humanism like the Skeptologist or Point of Inquiry. They’re shows made my skeptics/atheists/humanists to cater to that crowd about issues they deem important.
… People want to see atheist propaganda - and simply secular television isn’t good enough for them. Ah ha. But I see where the confusion is coming in for people.
People want to see loud and proud atheists on TV shouting “WOO DAWKINS!” or talking about how awesome science is. Having a secular program, just isn’t good enough for them. An important point that was made is that they weren’t feeling like the victims anymore - and that wasn’t good. Because if we’re not the victims, how can we make everyone feel sorry for us?
Simply put, I feel bad that this guy took flak from the audience for telling the truth. The fact of the matter is - the proposals that are put in to make secularist television shows are SO lame and cheesy. It’s difficult to create a television show surrounding a movement. There aren’t really that many environmentalist television shows, or feminists television shows. There are shows with feminists on them, there are also shows that are written and directed and produced entirely by women - but the theme isn’t always feminism. That doesn’t make it a non-feminist show.
If there was an “atheist” show on television, I likely wouldn’t watch it. Just like I don’t read many blogs that are loud and proud about atheism 24/7. The one statement that really got me worked up was this by Rod “He sure doesn’t sound like an atheist.”
Why? because he didn’t tell you what you wanted to hear? because he didn’t make it seem like the media was giving atheists a spanking? because he didn’t start spouting anti-religious propaganda? Ask me about my views on religion - I don’t sound like your everyday Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris atheists. I can assure you of that. To say that someone “doesn’t sound like an atheist” because they didn’t tell you that the people in your movement are being victimized is pure crap.
I really wish I would have gone to that talk. I think the speaker was spot on, and deserved much more credit and appreciation than what he was shown.
*UPDATE*
Zak has a blog. I think I knew it existed a long time ago, but couldn’t find it again. Anyway, he does write ups about CFI stuff - and I like them because he a) doesn’t sugar coat things and b) usually formulates some of my thoughts into sentences that I usually don’t know how to formulate. His sum-up of the event:
Overall, the evening was a refreshing look into atheist activism in Canada. I now realize that about half the visitors at CFI events are morons who have more in common with the religions they claim to oppose than the freedom of thought and ideas that CFI is suppose to really be about. However, the question period that followed was long (as was expected) but the questions were generally polite and supportive since the rude and crazy people made themselves heard throughout the presentation and, I suppose, couldn’t think of any new ways to rant. More importantly, the activists in the crowd (the ones who actually do things) were generally supportive of the message being presented so I hope we can use the opportunity to start working towards more productive and realistic goals.
Amen.
*update #2*
So… I had to take all the quotes out from the e-mails, it’s hard to gain the same message from the post, but alas… gotta do. Everyone who has been reading my blog for a while knows I hate more than anything on earth taking stuff off of my blog - especially when it’s been there for more than a few days and has gotten a lot of reads. I remember when the christian camp asked me to take stuff down it nearly went as far as court.
I think the last time I willingly took content down from my site is when a friend of mine was arrested for manslaughter… after I posted the stuff, I decided I didn’t want it up.
However. …I … whatever.
I’m running out of energy to keep blogging. I get in trouble too much.


Is it true that there are so few atheists in the media? Just because someone doesn’t talk about atheism 24/7 doesn’t mean one is religious. If you applied that criterion to race, you’d have to conclude that Bill Cosby, Will Smith, Chris Tucker, and the cast of Family Matters are white.
thank you for remaking the point i just made.
No, I have a separate point there, which is, are atheists really underrepresented among producers, writers, directors, etc.?
i see now that that very same point was made in the e-mails between each of us - but I didn’t copy and paste that part of the conversation into the post.
the answer is no.
After the talk, Amanda Peet and I had a lengthy debate on whether atheism is just the lack of belief in god, or if it also suports a ethical standpoint. At first, we totally disagreed, but eventually we came agreed on something that our “movement” may be able to use as a sort of “creed” of atheism: because there is no god, no heaven, and no life after death (and so on), we try to live every day for the moment - because this is all we have.
A spokesperson such as Justin could use this in so many scenerios to provide an ethical grounding for “our” views on issues, in the same way that a Christian will use, say, the Nicene Creed, to use a strange example.
In turn, I think this could be the basis for people such as Friday’s speaker to incorporate atheists into ethical debates on television and other media outlets (Justin is already doing this in the online Toronto Star to some extent).