We make assumptions about people’s religions, because they must “be” something. It’s part of what Wallace Stevens called our “rage for order.” The world can’t just be; it has to be “X.”

People can’t just be; they have to be religion X. And if they’re not religion X, they must purposefully and publicly proclaim something. Because atheist as default makes people really uncomfortable. Hence, “avowed.”

Makes it sound like I got something notarized, or have a glittery robe/crown.

But when you do this there is always a chance your voice will be drowned out!

Barna was involved with the book in the sense that it was published by Barna Books (his publishing wing) and according to Barnes and Noble, Barna is listed as a co-author. I think he just wrote the foreword, though… I’m not sure if he had involvement with the rest of the book.

Perhaps Jim can shed some light on this?

George was involved with this book from the beginning in terms of wanting to publish it. He only wrote the forward. He is listed as co author by a few groups but is not listed that way on the book.

Yes his marketing machine is VERY powerful which is why we signed with him
I have slowly learned that in order to get “heard” (if one aspires to this) one must first get a “hearing”

That’s why the term “avowed” or “self-avowed” started commonly being used before “atheist.” It was a way of saying “hey, we’re not insulting the guy by accusing him of this – he’s identifying himself voluntarily!”

I see. That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation!

We would find it odd, at the very least, to call someone an “avowed Lutheran” or an “avowed Buddhist.” Yet “avowed atheist” slips right by our internal censors. It has become an unchallenged epithet, as predictable to our ears as “wine-dark sea” and “gray-eyed Athena” were to Homer’s listeners or “card-carrying Communist” was to Senator Joseph McCarthy’s. (In English, we like our alliteration.)

But hold on a minute. “Avow” is not a neutral word: it means “to acknowledge without shame.” The implication is that there ought to be an element of shame involved, but the avower just doesn’t give a damn.

As we know all too well, to be godless in America is to be un-American–even anti-American. This country was founded by theists–avowed theists, if you will–and is trending scarily toward official theocracy. In this environment, where Jews can be regarded as “people who go to a different church,” atheists can barely be regarded at all. Even Wiccans get a fairer shake. But what’s an athetist, after all? Someone who just says no to the whole Great Spirit thing. Who says, Go ahead and pray if you like, but leave me out of it, thanks.

What disturbs me is hearing otherwise intelligent commentators–such as the one on my public-radio station–revert to the lazy, unthinking “avowed” epithet. Let’s think twice before automatically splicing adjective to noun for the sake of a sound bite. And a moment of respectful silence, please, for the ungodded among us. If nothing else, they force us to confront our collective demons.

BTW, didn’t Barna have some involvement with Jim & Matt’s book? Do you suppose that’s why he gave it such a strong plug?

Barna was involved with the book in the sense that it was published by Barna Books (his publishing wing) and according to Barnes and Noble, Barna is listed as a co-author. I think he just wrote the foreword, though… I’m not sure if he had involvement with the rest of the book.

Perhaps Jim can shed some light on this?

Why would it be passe or insulting to say that someone openly declares themselves to be an atheist? I don’t get it.

In the past (and in some circles today) the label “atheist” by itself carries such a stigma that it is automatically considered an insult. (Several of the Kitzmiller trial plaintiffs were very upset that townspeople called them “atheists” although they are not – it was definitely perceived as a putdown.)

That’s why the term “avowed” or “self-avowed” started commonly being used before “atheist.” It was a way of saying “hey, we’re not insulting the guy by accusing him of this – he’s identifying himself voluntarily!”

That’s why you’ll never see “an avowed Christian,” but you did commonly see “avowed atheist” up until a few years ago. I have not seen it used recently, however, and I was starting to think the phraseology was considered antiquated because “atheist” lost its sting a little, so “avowed” was no longer necessary.

This susprised me to see it used again, and I imagine it’s because Barna’s audience does still perceive “atheist” as an insult.

Try this, Mike (and others): Go to Google and type (with the quotation marks) “Avowed atheist”… see how many hits you get. Then try “Avowed Jew” and “Avowed Christian”

Fascinating, eh? It is to me, anyway. And it’s a sensitive topic in the atheist community.

Wow. I haven’t seen that wording (”avowed atheist”) in a looooong time. I thought that terminology became passe a few years ago, when people started to realize that “atheist” is not an automatic insult.

I’m confused. Is “avowed” a bad word or something? According to Websters it simply means “openly acknowledged or declared”. Why would it be passe or insulting to say that someone openly declares themselves to be an atheist? I don’t get it.

a former pastor and an avowed atheist

Wow. I haven’t seen that wording (“avowed atheist”) in a looooong time. I thought that terminology became passe a few years ago, when people started to realize that “atheist” is not an automatic insult.

Maybe they’re using “avowed” because they assume Barna’s audience is primarily composed of Christians who DO still equate “atheist” with “murderer,” “rapist,” etc?

Glad to hear that Jim and Casper’s book is doing well.