Ellen Johnson: Not a Great Atheist Representative, IMO
May 9, 2008 — L. Ron BrownAs some readers may already know, American Atheists has dismissed Ellen Johnson as its President. In hearing about this, I decided to check out a few Johnson YouTube videos, as I hadn’t done so in quite some time. Upon watching two videos, I remembered why I never made it a point to keep an eye out for her public addresses. Before I get into why, however, I must say why I am writing this piece now, just after she has been let go.
In the interest of good taste and compassion, I was originally going to wait a week until I did this. However, after watching a few of her interviews I had to say something. I thought I would satisfy my need to speak by posting a comment at the Friendly Atheist blog. That should tie me over for a week. But while I was writing this comment I felt that I should post it at TFP right now as well.
Why? Well, quite frankly, from what I have seen, she has not impressed me as a favourable representative of rationalism and atheist public relations. Furthermore, why should I be extra sympathetic to her? Because she’s an atheist? If the Catholic League had just booted Phil Donahue, I would surely not feel compelled to hold off for a week for him (note: I’m not deliberately inviting any comparisons between Donahue and Johnson). In the interest of fairness, I absolutely should criticize an atheist spokesperson just as I would a religious spokesperson. I have cut and pasted my comment on Friendly Atheist below, though with a few additions and small modifications.
I do not know much about Ellen Johnson’s work with AA. It is the opinion of at least some AA executives that Johnson was a very hardworker, knew her stuff, was caring, and was generally a great President. Moreover, some have speculated that AA could potentially fall apart without her, as it will surely be hard to find someone to replace what she brought for the modest annual salary of less than $40 K.
From what I have seen of Johnson, though, I really haven’t been particularly impressed. She has not struck me as a person that conveys the rationality and intellectual honesty that the atheist community holds so dear. She has claimed flat out that there is no God and that when you die, you’re dead and that’s it. As an agnostic atheist who is strongly committed to evidence-based beliefs, I am frustrated when I see a recognized atheist representative flout rationality and intellectual honesty, as it embarrasses the public image of the atheist community and gives people reason to be believe that this group is not nearly as intellectually honest as we say we are. And this is precisely what she is doing when she pretends to know - as if there were conclusive evidence - that there absolutely is no God (specific or unspecified/deistic) and that death is absolutely the end.
She also seems to have rather poor political tact. In fact, she seems to have flat out terrible political tact. I just watched a video of her on Paula Zahn with a panel that also featured a Christian, a Jew and a Muslim, in which she said that we’re really more likely to get an enlightened perspective from a President the less religious they are. Now, there is absolutely some truth to this (e.g., all else equal, I’m going to have more confidence in the religious moderate or the secularist than the religious literalist). I definitely think that religion is corrosive to reason just as reason is corrosive to religion. However, this is absolutely not to say that the atheist candidate (if there were one) would necessarily be the best candidate. Atheists can be dogmatists, while religious people can be very liberal, compassionate, tolerant, broad and open-minded (except for when it comes to their faith), and secular, rational and fair in their political activities. In addition to this comment being so easily argued down, it was just amazingly inflamatory. If an atheist representative (and ideally any atheist) is going to make an offensive comment, they could word it a hell of a lot more tactfully than she did, and they had better be able to back up what they say in the time given. Otherwise they’re just shooting them self and the rest of us in the foot. From what I’ve seen, Ellen Johnson has shot the atheist movement in the foot a number of times.
May 9, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Such pointless tactlessness can, I suppose, be passed off most charitably as youthful indiscretion. Whether your opinions of Ellen Johnson’s work are valid or specious, what’s the point? You speak of thinking about waiting a week (as if there is some virtue in that), but chose to say your piece now out of your “need to speak.” I suggest you think of your need for discretion and good judgment next time this need to speak overtakes you.
May 10, 2008 at 12:49 am
Ever since I’ve known about Ellen Johnson–roughly 1996–I’ve always been terribly underwhelmed by her, um, “preformance” on the job, if you can call it that.
This post adequately reflects my feelings.
May 10, 2008 at 7:50 am
Doug:
The primary reason I chose to speak now was because had Ellen Johnson been a leader of a religious group I surely would not have waited a week before I posted in the interest of sympathy.
Also, I did make it a point of speaking of her positively, too - referencing how hard she is said to have worked, how well she knew her stuff, her caringness, and how at least 2 members believe that without her AA could literally fall apart. These are some pretty hefty compliments, don’t you think?
May 10, 2008 at 7:53 am
And it seems that you would have been just as unimpressed had I waited a week. What alternative do you suggest? Waiting 2 months? Or how about never posting anything so critical of her at all? Or something in between these alternatives? What path should I have taken that would have both been civil to Mrs. Johnson and fair to how I would have commented on a religious leader who I was displeased with the actions of?
May 10, 2008 at 10:48 am
Attentiveness to signs of bias within oneself and an aim to treat others with some measure of equality are all to the good. The former is an important aspect of intellectual honesty and sound reasoning, and the latter is important to those and a fundamental moral principle as well.
My question is directed more at the need or reason to voice personal criticism of this sort after someone has left a position and is no longer performing the work to which the criticism is directed. I just don’t see the need–or at least not one that warrants the pain such criticism may cause.
May 10, 2008 at 4:16 pm
I live in Norway and obviously haven’t followed the organisation closely, but I have to agree that from those interviews I’ve seen/read she have lacked a certain intellectual honesty. Or at least, her rhetoric has been a bit brutish. It’s a bit like Hitchens, but wihout the wit (that works to soften his sometimes outrageous statements).
left the board of the Norwegian Humanist organisation. While she is a hard-hitting and good speaker, she’s not an “organisational animal” as we say, so she levelled some (pretty accurate) criticism at the organisation. But it didn’t really help to just piss them off, and she did lose her temper a couple of times. I guess maverick would be the appropriate term, and while I personally agreed 100% with her, I understand that she’s a much better writer and debater than a board member.
Having said that, being a president and a spokesperson is after all two different things that in her position was combined into one job.
Recently, in Norway, a very good spokeswoman for ex-muslims (although she prefers “atheist muslim”
So my point is that while Ellen Johnson may not have been the best spokesperson, it doesn’t diminish her other organisational efforts.
As for why she was really kicked out, we’ll probably learn soon.
May 10, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Doug: Again, I did make it a point to reference good things about what she has done. Secondly, these criticisms need not be taken as a daggar to the heart. They could be taken as constructive criticisms and implied suggestions.
Next, what about the pain she has surely caused people? She has made it a point for years to be particularly brash and in your face in her approach. She is supposed to be a representative for a social group and she comes off as incredibly disparaging, uncompassionate, and makes claims that she nor anyone else can back up.
The first criticism - that she makes irresponsible and unjustified truth claims - was something that she probably could have taken in stride, as I imagine that she is reasonable enough that she would say “yes, you’re correct, I do not know for certain what happens after death (in fact, she can’t have any idea at all - though there is surely no reason to believe in anything) nor can I know that there is not a God, though I can reasonably say that to this point no one seems to have given good reason to believe”. I was more strong-worded in my second criticism - her brashness - because her brashness combined with her overly strong epistemological statements are far more likely to hurt the nonreligious than to help us. And her approach will undoubtedly cause unnecessary pain.
Lastly, she may have left the position but I do not think that she will stop being an atheist. So it’s not like this criticism is useless. I’m not the president of an atheist association and you are offering me feedback on my behaviour, which could potentially hurt me as you’re implying that I have been kind of a prick for making the criticisms I’ve made when I’ve made them. Does my not being a leader of such an association make your criticisms useless? Surely not. I still conduct myself in day-to-day life and so does she. And she will very conceivably still get some relatively wide exposure here and there given that she is a former president of AA.
May 12, 2008 at 5:09 am
Guys. It is fairly simple why she was chosen the president. She was very good looking…now she is getting old
May 12, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Mr. Brown,
This is such a fair-minded post, both as to Ms. Johnson and as to people of faith. No surprise, I guess, as Dennis Prager is one of my favorite commentators and I see in the second video clip that you and he share concern over a candidate’s values rather than their personal faith.
As for Johnson’s seeming departure from reason by claiming to “know” what happens after death . . . Prager has noted that in past debates with atheists before largely atheist audiences, he has asked for a show of hands from the atheists in the crowd from anyone who has doubted their atheism, and he routinely gets no acknowledgments. He contends that most religious people have doubted their faith at least once in their lives, and says he sees great irony in this anecdotal evidence that atheists have greater faith than the religious!
You acknowledgment that the unknowable exists is intellectually honest. You should watch for Prager’s next debate with atheists and be prepared to raise ytour hand!
May 14, 2008 at 7:59 am
What you see as lack of tact, she probably sees as a way to get ahead. Anyone who does not watch TV these days then catches one in a bar knows the truth. TV land is not reality. It’s not even close. It does not even mirror print land much.
People are shocked out. They are over exposed to too much stimulation. The only way to get their attention is yelling. At least that’s what TV thinks. They need to put everything in the most unsubtle and crudest way possible. So it’s actually going down hill.
Ellen is playing the game. Will it help atheists? Not any more than Coulter helps republicans. But it helps Ellen’s career because those are the kind of people they like to have on TV.
Remember the medium is not the message. The medium right now is retarded. The message is, “YELL YELL”. That is, there is no message just yelling.
AAAAAHHHH!
May 16, 2008 at 11:57 am
evedyahu: Agreed. She’s still a MILF, though.
May 26, 2008 at 1:34 pm
I have met Ellen once at an Atheist function. My impression of her was that she was a very business like person who has a lot of energy and is good at organizational matters, however I was not impressed with her attitude. Ellen is articulate and friendly but I left the meeting with a negative attitude about the state of American Atheists. I sensed that she was out of ideas, overwhelmed and frustrated. Although this was not a public appearance, I felt that she may not be an entirely good spokesperson for the organization and that she would be best at running it. But then, maybe it was time to move on. 13 years is a long time in a position and if you don’t go somewhere you may stagnate. Is this what happened? It would be nice to have more insight. It’s too bad that the board was not more tactful in this matter.
May 26, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Upon reading my opinion, I do not feel that I have conveyed enough credit to Ellen. I really would like to add that Ellen appears to have done a great job with AA and I would not wish to take any of that away from her. She deserves our respect and support. I hope that she can find another path where she can continue to apply her unique talents.