When members of the GW Secular Society hung posters around campus with pictures of members captioned “This is what an Atheist looks like,” they hoped they would be making campus more comfortable for atheists who wanted to tell their families about their beliefs.
But most of the signs have been torn down.
“People thought we were trying to recruit or to preach, but we were trying to show people we’re just like everyone else and we’re not the devil,” junior Nare Gukasyan, a member of the GW Secular Society, said.
Gukasyan said she comes from a fairly liberal area of Massachusetts and identified as agnostic throughout high school. But when she came to GW, she began to identify as an atheist.
She said she often gets challenged on her views and is forced her to defend her beliefs.
“Well, at school when you tell someone you’re in a secular society the first word that comes out of their mouths is ‘Why?’ But when you tell someone you’re Jewish or Muslim, they don’t ask why like that,” Gukasyan said.
Gukasyan was surprised by the response to the posters, and said she had not expected such a hostile reaction on a campus that is often noted for being liberal.
“I think I expected the school to be much more open. I don’t know if 'liberal' is the word, but open to different understandings or different beliefs, and recognize that just because some people don’t believe in certain things doesn’t mean you’re weird. You’re just different,” Gukasyan said.
The group was started and later disbanded several years ago due to lack of student interest. Now, it boasts more than 100 members.
Sophomore Magdalena Stuehrmann, the group’s public relations and outreach director, said members became concerned after an online fight prompted by comments on the Overheard at GW Facebook page broke out. Stuehrmann said the weekly support group meetings for atheists and agnostics are designed to help students feel safe on campus and quell any negative feelings.
“We were shocked to see the lack of acceptance, especially on such a liberal campus,” Stuehrmann said.
Though the group tends to comprise mostly atheists or agnostics, Stuehrmann said there are also members who identify with other religions, including Christianity and Buddhism. She described the organization as “a group of people who share the belief in the separation of church and state.”
“We have several members who haven’t told their parents about their beliefs yet due to the fear of repercussions,” Stuehrmann said.
The Secular Society is currently planning to hold events this spring, including a Darwin Day Celebration, to discuss human evolution. They will also host an event featuring speaker Nate Phelps, an atheist and son of the founder of the Westboro Baptist Church.
The question “why” is because atheism is often seen as a form of rebellion against the religious traditions in which someone was raised.
While I’m not affiliated with the GW Secular Society, I’ve faced the same questions and pressure, even from my friends, when talking about religion. I respect all religions, yet few seem to accept my choices. So, thanks GW Secular Society, for bringing this out on the table. I’m curious, though; why host Nate Phelps?
I think the motivation for having Nate Phelps come and speak is that he is a prominent atheist and LGBT activist who works for the Center for Inquiry, a reputable and prominent freethought organization. I think he would have an interesting perspective on current events, especially given his past with the West Boro Baptist Church and the defections from that church (his nephews) that happened today. The group probably identifies well with him and is interested in hearing him speak.
Sorry, I misread his title. Makes sense.
As a fairly religious Christian on campus, I’ve always found it a bit uncomfortable to talk about religion on campus because it seems like nearly everyone is either atheist, or a agnostic, so I find it a bit surprising that the members of the Secular Society face a “hostile reaction.”
“I don’t know if ‘liberal’ is the word, but open to different understandings or different beliefs,”
No. Liberal is not “the word.” >_>
I don’t think nearly everyone is either atheist or an agnostic. People may not be VERY religious, but they still believe in some sort of a god.
My experience is fairly different from this. Many of the people I have met are practicing members of a few faiths. Guess it varies for everyone.
I feel as if the danger of the posters is that it plays to the stereotypes of atheist/agnostic people, that they are engaging in a form of rebellion and have a “look at me, I’m an atheist!” type of an attitude. This certainly isn’t always fair, but the posters reinforce what people already think they know about atheists.
I think the hope is that people like Nare want to be able to mention in passing that they are an atheist or agnostic or whatever and not get treated differently, just like Christians and Jews can say something about church or synagogue or whatever and not get treated differently. I don’t see how saying “I’m an atheist” reinforces what people already think of them. It means that people already think that we know we are atheists and proud? That’s not just “not always fair”, that’s COMPLETELY not fair.
I don’t go around saying “Look at me, I’m an atheist!” It comes up in conversation. Religion is a big part of our lives. It doesn’t matter if you’re religious or not. It’s in our government, in our school, and in our homes.
Nobody on campus cares if you’re secular (I would guess the majority of students are agnostic anyway), it was just a poorly done, self-indulgent campaign. And the ‘fight’ on Overheard was really people just saying they had no idea why people feel a need to gather because they’re non-religious
1. Secular =/= Atheist, and many people care if one is secular, namely those opposed to secularism.
2. Their lack of knowledge on why people feel the need to gather does not mean there is no reason to do so. GWSS members and officers gave numerous reasons why they would feel the need to gather, and again, the group is not just for the non-religious, as it is first and foremost about Secularism, which doesn’t entail being personally non-religious.
3. It is not self-indulgent to promote the existence of a student org. If this were the case, every org would be so self indulgent.
You have no idea how many people are shunned from their families because they are atheist/agnostic/etc. There are kids who would be kicked out if their parents found out. If you had even gone to one meeting and heard peoples’ stories, you’d be surprised at how horrifically families take the news. Just because you haven’t experienced it yourself, doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
As an atheist, I understand that the world we live in is extremely hostile to atheists and those who are not affiliated with a religion. Though GW is not as bad, there is definitely a tepid response to having The GW Secular Society thrive on campus. But hopefully this will change as the org grows. Keep it up GWSS!!!!!
Why bother tolerating atheists while they are the most intolerant people. Atheism=Communism ’nuff said
I have experienced quite the opposite. The atheists I meet on campus have tended to be more accepting of and curious about my religious beliefs than people who identify with a religion other than mine.
How are atheists the most intolerant? And yes, communists are secular. But that doesn’t mean Atheists/Agnostics/ Humanists/etc are Communist.
Google “Christian Communism.”
This was basically like the real-life version of the whole “Faces of /r/atheism” episode that led to the creation of /r/circlebroke on Reddit. In other words some people probably tore the posters down because they’re not the kind of people who go for smug circlejerks.
“smug circlejerk.” Do explain. How is a student org promoting itself a smug circlejerk?
I’m atheist, but I actually really didn’t like the posters as the phrasing, “This is what an atheist looks like” makes it seem as though atheists are exotic animals in a sarcastic way. You need to come up with a different marketing campaign, because this one feels condescending.
That’s reading a lot into it that is not there. I would advise not reading sarcasm from something that has no audible tone/facial feature changes, etc, as there is rarely if at all evidence for such a claim. Same goes for the condescension, which REALLY isn’t there.